The tip last night on May at over 80% of the vote at 18/1 is tasty! (Skybet)
Not so tasty I fear. More a bad taste in the mouth for me.
Getting over 80% of the vote in a two horse gig is a huge threshold. And for every JohnO, Nabbers and Fitalass and family there are also a decent number of frothers.
Those anonymous sources? It wasn't you, Mr P, was it?
Probably someone in the Times newsroom.
This should be a great chance for the LDs. The two main parties with "problematic" leaders, Ukip now seeing its reason for existing diminished, Tim will never have another opening like this.
But I respect them for not dropping their fanatical devotion to Europe. Death before dishonour.
Aside from the comical and quaint notion of "having at least one ideological principle" surely being the pro-European voice is an electoral plus for the LDs? It wouldn't be straightforward to prove, but it seems likely that the seepage of votes in the seats they lost to the Tories last time out were primarily Labour voters "returning home" (the post-coalition conclusion that there was no point lending your vote to keep out a Tory if all you got was a zealous Tory-enabler). In general those voters would be expected to break pro-European by at least the 2:1 typical of Labour voters, probably even more pro given the demographics of those seats. So it seems likely that at the very least the LDs would succeed in getting the "punish the stupid Tories" vote back and with it a couple of dozen seats.
Harder to call nationwide, but in pro-remain seats which are LD vs Lab, or 3-way competitions you can see a lot of Labour switchers if Eagle (or whoever) goes into the GE with some handwringing patheticness of "yes, leaving the EU is a disaster, but we can't actually oppose it". OTOH, it's hard to see much Tory pickup as they broadly had the Leave voters anyway. So overall seems like an LD position that could be pretty effective.
The priority at the next GE has to be to prevent an overall Tory majority. Labour could do a lot worse than campaign invisibly in or even not contest seats where the LDs are in second place to the Tories. With a non-Tory majority in the Commons, representing well over 50% of all votes, a change to a PR electoral system can be secured and we'd at last get a Parliament that reflects public opinion.
In order for that to work Labour will have to come out very soon for PR and put it in their manifesto. If it is a new 'Progressive Labour' party doing so that would be more convincing.
Those anonymous sources? It wasn't you, Mr P, was it?
Probably someone in the Times newsroom.
This should be a great chance for the LDs. The two main parties with "problematic" leaders, Ukip now seeing its reason for existing diminished, Tim will never have another opening like this.
But I respect them for not dropping their fanatical devotion to Europe. Death before dishonour.
Aside from the comical and quaint notion of "having at least one ideological principle" surely being the pro-European voice is an electoral plus for the LDs? It wouldn't be straightforward to prove, but it seems likely that the seepage of votes in the seats they lost to the Tories last time out were primarily Labour voters "returning home" (the post-coalition conclusion that there was no point lending your vote to keep out a Tory if all you got was a zealous Tory-enabler). In general those voters would be expected to break pro-European by at least the 2:1 typical of Labour voters, probably even more pro given the demographics of those seats. So it seems likely that at the very least the LDs would succeed in getting the "punish the stupid Tories" vote back and with it a couple of dozen seats.
Harder to call nationwide, but in pro-remain seats which are LD vs Lab, or 3-way competitions you can see a lot of Labour switchers if Eagle (or whoever) goes into the GE with some handwringing patheticness of "yes, leaving the EU is a disaster, but we can't actually oppose it". OTOH, it's hard to see much Tory pickup as they broadly had the Leave voters anyway. So overall seems like an LD position that could be pretty effective.
The priority at the next GE has to be to prevent an overall Tory majority. Labour could do a lot worse than campaign invisibly in or even not contest seats where the LDs are in second place to the Tories. With a non-Tory majority in the Commons, representing well over 50% of all votes, a change to a PR electoral system can be secured and we'd at last get a Parliament that reflects public opinion.
In your scenario, are you suggesting that the non-Tory parties keep quiet about this plan to change to PR and then spring it on everybody once they have formed the Government. If not, do you think that they should adopt the approach of a) Putting the policy in their various manifestos before the election b) Take the fact that they have a majority to put the matter to a referendum (following the precedent of the AV referendum)
I'd be happy with a or b. It would need to be in manifestos.
After reading several posts yesterday re Labour MPs joining the LDs en masse as an escape pod from Corbyn - I was really struck by one thing.
Why would the LDs want this? Labour taking over as a Party Within A Party? Forcing a change of leader to elect their man? Destroying whatever identity the LDs still have?
Sounds a lot like Momentun and Labour to me. I hope the LDs have looked at their leadership election rules and ensured that they can't be infiltrated by those planning a hostile takeover.
All parties have a process before taking in defecting parliamentarians (or even councillors), and you are right that I could not see the LibDems accepting more than one or two as traditional defections. "Infiltration" would involve members, not MPs, and I don't think the LibDems are likely to be infiltrated by mass members coming from Labour.
Essentially it is the same position as in the 1980s - the number of potential defectors (assuming your scenario is valid) is such that some sort of new party is the only real option. And since they are largely devoid of a platform, other than being against Corbyn, I would expect the LDs to be a lot more wary about them than they were about the SDP (and for those old enough to remember, there was a good helping of wariness back then).
Mr Stodge and I had a reminisence about that wariness recently. While there was a deal of goodwill, there was certainly a considerable caution about what exactly they did bring to the party. Or Party! IIRC we agreed that there was quite a lot of “top-down-ness”; Labour MP’s who became SDP/Alliance didn’t, generally, bring many of their constituency activits with them.
Yes, in remember that in most seats the membership was predominantly Liberal, and where they suddenly found themselves with a former Labour (and the odd Tory) MP or councillor, who they had been opposing for years, things could get very painful indeed. Only a handful of seats had the opposite problem, with a predominance of 'new' SDP members - parts of North London were like that.
With hindsight I think through time the Liberals have been able to reshape the LDs more to resemble their heritage and attitudes, although there is no doubt that at national level the party became significantly more professional during that time. The previous local constituency attitude to Liberal Party HQ was that the weaker and more useless it was the less damage it could do.
It is interesting to see where a lot of the more senior SDP defectors ended up - quite a few of them made the journey from Labour to Tory via the SDP. I believe both Truss and Soubry are ex-SDP.
After reading several posts yesterday re Labour MPs joining the LDs en masse as an escape pod from Corbyn - I was really struck by one thing.
Why would the LDs want this? Labour taking over as a Party Within A Party? Forcing a change of leader to elect their man? Destroying whatever identity the LDs still have?
Sounds a lot like Momentun and Labour to me. I hope the LDs have looked at their leadership election rules and ensured that they can't be infiltrated by those planning a hostile takeover.
All parties have a process before taking in defecting parliamentarians (or even councillors), and you are right that I could not see the LibDems accepting more than one or two as traditional defections. "Infiltration" would involve members, not MPs, and I don't think the LibDems are likely to be infiltrated by mass members coming from Labour.
Essentially it is the same position as in the 1980s - the number of potential defectors (assuming your scenario is valid) is such that some sort of new party is the only real option. And since they are largely devoid of a platform, other than being against Corbyn, I would expect the LDs to be a lot more wary about them than they were about the SDP (and for those old enough to remember, there was a good helping of wariness back then).
Mr Stodge and I had a reminisence about that wariness recently. While there was a deal of goodwill, there was certainly a considerable caution about what exactly they did bring to the party. Or Party! IIRC we agreed that there was quite a lot of “top-down-ness”; Labour MP’s who became SDP/Alliance didn’t, generally, bring many of their constituency activits with them.
They got the great Charlie Kennedy who got the Iraq vote absolutely right !
After reading several posts yesterday re Labour MPs joining the LDs en masse as an escape pod from Corbyn - I was really struck by one thing.
Why would the LDs want this? Labour taking over as a Party Within A Party? Forcing a change of leader to elect their man? Destroying whatever identity the LDs still have?
Sounds a lot like Momentun and Labour to me. I hope the LDs have looked at their leadership election rules and ensured that they can't be infiltrated by those planning a hostile takeover.
All parties have a process before taking in defecting parliamentarians (or even councillors), and you are right that I could not see the LibDems accepting more than one or two as traditional defections. "Infiltration" would involve members, not MPs, and I don't think the LibDems are likely to be infiltrated by mass members coming from Labour.
Essentially it is the same position as in the 1980s - the number of potential defectors (assuming your scenario is valid) is such that some sort of new party is the only real option. And since they are largely devoid of a platform, other than being against Corbyn, I would expect the LDs to be a lot more wary about them than they were about the SDP (and for those old enough to remember, there was a good helping of wariness back then).
Mr Stodge and I had a reminisence about that wariness recently. While there was a deal of goodwill, there was certainly a considerable caution about what exactly they did bring to the party. Or Party! IIRC we agreed that there was quite a lot of “top-down-ness”; Labour MP’s who became SDP/Alliance didn’t, generally, bring many of their constituency activits with them.
Yes, in remember that in most seats the membership was predominantly Liberal, and where they suddenly found themselves with a former Labour (and the odd Tory) MP or councillor, who they had been opposing for years, things could get very painful indeed. Only a handful of seats had the opposite problem, with a predominance of 'new' SDP members - parts of North London were like that.
With hindsight I think through time the Liberals have been able to reshape the LDs more to resemble their heritage and attitudes, although there is no doubt that at national level the party became significantly more professional during that time. The previous local constituency attitude to Liberal Party HQ was that the weaker and more useless it was the less damage it could do.
It is interesting to see where a lot of the more senior SDP defectors ended up - quite a few of them made the journey from Labour to Tory via the SDP. I believe both Truss and Soubry are ex-SDP.
Harder to call nationwide, but in pro-remain seats which are LD vs Lab, or 3-way competitions you can see a lot of Labour switchers if Eagle (or whoever) goes into the GE with some handwringing patheticness of "yes, leaving the EU is a disaster, but we can't actually oppose it". OTOH, it's hard to see much Tory pickup as they broadly had the Leave voters anyway. So overall seems like an LD position that could be pretty effective.
I don't agree with Tim Farron's stance on this but I do understand it and tactically it could be astute and, if Leadsom wins, very astute.
The problems (and there are many) start with the premise the rest of the EU would allow us back on the same terms we rejected last month - that seems implausible.
There's the small matter of the democracy thing - we voted to LEAVE, some may be suffering buyers' remorse but it was a decision taken freely and fairly and with a respectable turnout behind it.
The question then becomes under what terms would we be allowed back - assuming we call it STAY and RETURN - what would be the basis of RETURN ? The Euro ? Schengen ? I doubt the EU would be that stupid or vindictive but it stretches magnamity to assume there would be no price to pay at all.
An LD position of " we will support a minority Conservative or Labour administration only if it commits to a second Referendum on negotiated terms of re-entry to the EU within 24 months" would be clear but I can't see either of the main parties being comfortable though the reality of the acquisition or retention of power often changes minds quite effectively.
I see Tim Farron's position on the EU extremely sound. Political parties do not have to copy the majority, in which case, most parties will not have a manifesto.
OK. what happens if the Tories are 15 short of a majority and the LDs have 20 MPs ? The Tories may not accept the 2nd referendum, but then they will not be getting their bills through either.
3 part LD manifesto:
- reassess EU membership (perhaps through a non-irresponsible referendum on such a major constitutional change with a two-thirds threshold) - reverse Osbome's 15pc corporation tax with a 9pc rise raising £18bn a year - spend all money raised on NHS. There's even a second hand battlebus available with the weekly total written on the side
I think it may be earlier, what we're going to ask for seems uncontroversial to me, keeping all four freedoms and ensuring we stay in the single market, possibly in the foreign policy framework too at the insistence of the Americans, Eastern Europeans and France. I think the French fear a German led foreign policy stance as much as we do given their mercantile nature and unwillingness to take any sort of economic pain for foreign policy goals.
The tip last night on May at over 80% of the vote at 18/1 is tasty! (Skybet)
Not so tasty I fear. More a bad taste in the mouth for me.
Getting over 80% of the vote in a two horse gig is a huge threshold. And for every JohnO, Nabbers and Fitalass and family there are also a decent number of frothers.
After reading several posts yesterday re Labour MPs joining the LDs en masse as an escape pod from Corbyn - I was really struck by one thing.
Why would the LDs want this? Labour taking over as a Party Within A Party? Forcing a change of leader to elect their man? Destroying whatever identity the LDs still have?
Sounds a lot like Momentun and Labour to me. I hope the LDs have looked at their leadership election rules and ensured that they can't be infiltrated by those planning a hostile takeover.
........
Essentially it is the same position as in the 1980s - the number of potential defectors (assuming your scenario is valid) is such that some sort of new party is the only real option. And since they are largely devoid of a platform, other than being against Corbyn, I would expect the LDs to be a lot more wary about them than they were about the SDP (and for those old enough to remember, there was a good helping of wariness back then).
Mr Stodge and I had a reminisence about that wariness recently. While there was a deal of goodwill, there was certainly a considerable caution about what exactly they did bring to the party. Or Party! IIRC we agreed that there was quite a lot of “top-down-ness”; Labour MP’s who became SDP/Alliance didn’t, generally, bring many of their constituency activits with them.
Yes, in remember that in most seats the membership was predominantly Liberal, and where they suddenly found themselves with a former Labour (and the odd Tory) MP or councillor, who they had been opposing for years, things could get very painful indeed. Only a handful of seats had the opposite problem, with a predominance of 'new' SDP members - parts of North London were like that.
With hindsight I think through time the Liberals have been able to reshape the LDs more to resemble their heritage and attitudes, although there is no doubt that at national level the party became significantly more professional during that time. The previous local constituency attitude to Liberal Party HQ was that the weaker and more useless it was the less damage it could do.
It is interesting to see where a lot of the more senior SDP defectors ended up - quite a few of them made the journey from Labour to Tory via the SDP. I believe both Truss and Soubry are ex-SDP.
Wasn't Slipman, an SDP member once a Communist ? And, what about Polly Toynbee ? She was an SDP candidate. If you go by the PB Tories, she is the devil-incarnate from the Left.
I think 2020 or later is a good shout to be honest, although I suspect the obvious date would be to leave on 31/12/19 providing the negotiations can be concluded satisfactorily to allow that. To that end I suspect that triggering of A50 will be Q1 2017 to allow a grace period in case negotiations to the 2019 date are difficult to conclude.
Of course it depends on who is running with the ball on this. The choice before the selectorate is between gung ho true believerism and cautious scepticism. I can understand the desire for just getting on and getting out, but there is so much to unwind and so much more to put in place that excessive haste may prove a less clean solution. The more deliberate and cautious approach means that the process of decoupling whilst slower will be more comprehensive. There are thousands of pieces of legislation that make reference to EU institutions, it isn't as simple as repealing the 1972 Act.
The other advantage of the slower more cautious approach is that it allows for the reassurance of the 16m who did not want this. The approach of certain true brexiteers seems very much to ignore those who voted to stay and rub their noses in it.
The tip last night on May at over 80% of the vote at 18/1 is tasty! (Skybet)
Not so tasty I fear. More a bad taste in the mouth for me.
Getting over 80% of the vote in a two horse gig is a huge threshold. And for every JohnO, Nabbers and Fitalass and family there are also a decent number of frothers.
I'd say 60/40 for May is the most likely outcome.
If the EEA/FoM are discussed more and more, and given the impression that after the vote that is what the strategy will be, Leadsom will win !
The tip last night on May at over 80% of the vote at 18/1 is tasty! (Skybet)
Not so tasty I fear. More a bad taste in the mouth for me.
Getting over 80% of the vote in a two horse gig is a huge threshold. And for every JohnO, Nabbers and Fitalass and family there are also a decent number of frothers.
Wise words, I'm hopeful May can replicate or better the 3 in 5 votes cast for her by MPs in the second ballot.
After reading several posts yesterday re Labour MPs joining the LDs en masse as an escape pod from Corbyn - I was really struck by one thing.
Why would the LDs want this? Labour taking over as a Party Within A Party? Forcing a change of leader to elect their man? Destroying whatever identity the LDs still have?
Sounds a lot like Momentun and Labour to me. I hope the LDs have looked at their leadership election rules and ensured that they can't be infiltrated by those planning a hostile takeover.
........
Essentially it is the same position as in the 1980s - the number of potential defectors (assuming your scenario is valid) is such that some sort of new party is the only real option. And since they are largely devoid of a platform, other than being against Corbyn, I would expect the LDs to be a lot more wary about them than they were about the SDP (and for those old enough to remember, there was a good helping of wariness back then).
Mr Stodge and I had a reminisence about that wariness recently. While there was a deal of goodwill, there was certainly a considerable caution about what exactly they did bring to the party. Or Party! IIRC we agreed that there was quite a lot of “top-down-ness”; Labour MP’s who became SDP/Alliance didn’t, generally, bring many of their constituency activits with them.
Yes, in remember that in most seats the membership was predominantly Liberal, and where they suddenly found themselves with a former Labour (and the odd Tory) MP or councillor, who they had been opposing for years, things could get very painful indeed. Only a handful of seats had the opposite problem, with a predominance of 'new' SDP members - parts of North London were like that.
With hindsight I think through time the Liberals have been able to reshape the LDs more to resemble their heritage and attitudes, although there is no doubt that at national level the party became significantly more professional during that time. The previous local constituency attitude to Liberal Party HQ was that the weaker and more useless it was the less damage it could do.
It is interesting to see where a lot of the more senior SDP defectors ended up - quite a few of them made the journey from Labour to Tory via the SDP. I believe both Truss and Soubry are ex-SDP.
Wasn't Slipman, an SDP member once a Communist ? And, what about Polly Toynbee ? She was an SDP candidate. If you go by the PB Tories, she is the devil-incarnate from the Left.
Toynbee went off with Owen and was seen the same way by most liberals.
I think 2020 or later is a good shout to be honest, although I suspect the obvious date would be to leave on 31/12/19 providing the negotiations can be concluded satisfactorily to allow that. To that end I suspect that triggering of A50 will be Q1 2017 to allow a grace period in case negotiations to the 2019 date are difficult to conclude.
Of course it depends on who is running with the ball on this. The choice before the selectorate is between gung ho true believerism and cautious scepticism. I can understand the desire for just getting on and getting out, but there is so much to unwind and so much more to put in place that excessive haste may prove a less clean solution. The more deliberate and cautious approach means that the process of decoupling whilst slower will be more comprehensive. There are thousands of pieces of legislation that make reference to EU institutions, it isn't as simple as repealing the 1972 Act.
The other advantage of the slower more cautious approach is that it allows for the reassurance of the 16m who did not want this. The approach of certain true brexiteers seems very much to ignore those who voted to stay and rub their noses in it.
I think 2020 or later is a good shout to be honest, although I suspect the obvious date would be to leave on 31/12/19 providing the negotiations can be concluded satisfactorily to allow that. To that end I suspect that triggering of A50 will be Q1 2017 to allow a grace period in case negotiations to the 2019 date are difficult to conclude.
Of course it depends on who is running with the ball on this. The choice before the selectorate is between gung ho true believerism and cautious scepticism. I can understand the desire for just getting on and getting out, but there is so much to unwind and so much more to put in place that excessive haste may prove a less clean solution. The more deliberate and cautious approach means that the process of decoupling whilst slower will be more comprehensive. There are thousands of pieces of legislation that make reference to EU institutions, it isn't as simple as repealing the 1972 Act.
The other advantage of the slower more cautious approach is that it allows for the reassurance of the 16m who did not want this. The approach of certain true brexiteers seems very much to ignore those who voted to stay and rub their noses in it.
Indeed, and in a "normal" election the WWC supporters that gave Leave their victory will probably revert to staying at home.
After reading several posts yesterday re Labour MPs joining the LDs en masse as an escape pod from Corbyn - I was really struck by one thing.
Why would the LDs want this? Labour taking over as a Party Within A Party? Forcing a change of leader to elect their man? Destroying whatever identity the LDs still have?
Sounds a lot like Momentun and Labour to me. I hope the LDs have looked at their leadership election rules and ensured that they can't be infiltrated by those planning a hostile takeover.
All parties have a process before taking in defecting parliamentarians (or even councillors), and you are right that I could not see the LibDems accepting more than one or two as traditional defections. "Infiltration" would involve members, not MPs, and I don't think the LibDems are likely to be infiltrated by mass members coming from Labour.
Essentially it is the same position as in the 1980s - the number of potential defectors (assuming your scenario is valid) is such that some sort of new party is the only real option. And since they are largely devoid of a platform, other than being against Corbyn, I would expect the LDs to be a lot more wary about them than they were about the SDP (and for those old enough to remember, there was a good helping of wariness back then).
In one way, the "defecting" Labour MPs will not need a party. They will still claim to be Labour. It will be for the courts to sort out the assets [ CLP by CLP ].
Meanwhile , in the HoC , the Speaker will go by the numbers. If 150 Labour MPs said they were the LPP, then that will be it. The Speaker will only be interested in the HoC. What are Labour rules is not important to him.
All the more, I am gobsmacked about Angela Eagle. The above is the only viable scenario for the rebels. By doing the same after losing the Leadership election heavily, it would seem like sour grapes.
True, if enough Labour MPs defect en masse they could become the official opposition overnight and as a by product create a small 'Real Labour' party led by Corbyn. What's to stop the Tories calling a GE (having got around the FTP act) and clean up? Labour MPs need to have thought all this through. They need to have an electoral pact in place with the LibDems and I can't see them agreeing to that without a commitment to PR. They should try to bring as many councillors and activists with them as possible on a local level. It must be really tricky being a Labour MP at the moment.
The tip last night on May at over 80% of the vote at 18/1 is tasty! (Skybet)
Not so tasty I fear. More a bad taste in the mouth for me.
Getting over 80% of the vote in a two horse gig is a huge threshold. And for every JohnO, Nabbers and Fitalass and family there are also a decent number of frothers.
Wise words, I'm hopeful May can replicate or better the 3 in 5 votes cast for her by MPs in the second ballot.
I posted the initial results from my straw poll, it's looking good so far, of the people yet to respond there are more on the leave side though. There's a gathering later today at the association so I'm hoping to get a few opinions.
I think 2020 or later is a good shout to be honest, although I suspect the obvious date would be to leave on 31/12/19 providing the negotiations can be concluded satisfactorily to allow that. To that end I suspect that triggering of A50 will be Q1 2017 to allow a grace period in case negotiations to the 2019 date are difficult to conclude.
Of course it depends on who is running with the ball on this. The choice before the selectorate is between gung ho true believerism and cautious scepticism. I can understand the desire for just getting on and getting out, but there is so much to unwind and so much more to put in place that excessive haste may prove a less clean solution. The more deliberate and cautious approach means that the process of decoupling whilst slower will be more comprehensive. There are thousands of pieces of legislation that make reference to EU institutions, it isn't as simple as repealing the 1972 Act.
The other advantage of the slower more cautious approach is that it allows for the reassurance of the 16m who did not want this. The approach of certain true brexiteers seems very much to ignore those who voted to stay and rub their noses in it.
Q1 2017 triggering means Q1 2019 leaving.
Unless the time period is extended, if the negotiations are going well and there is a deal on the cards then it wouldn't be hard to extend the two years. If we're at an impasse then I doubt we would be able to get one.
I want Theresa May to become Conservative leader, but if she loses this, it will be because her campaign and supporters have repeated exactly the same mistakes of the Remain campaign.
She should be setting out a positive position-based agenda for where she will take the country. Instead, she wants to surf a complacent establishment position, while people just shout ever more loudly about how ghastly the other side is. Reasonable, moderate points against the other side are ramped up to a hysterical quality, and supporters of the other side are told they stupid zealots.
It's obviously a terrible strategy as it has just been shown to fail so much, yet they continue anyway? Why? Do these people learn nothing? Perhaps there's a section of the UK population that is so unable to deal with losing their emotion drives them to arguments they know will backfire.
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
These are the questions asked.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?" ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
The tip last night on May at over 80% of the vote at 18/1 is tasty! (Skybet)
Not so tasty I fear. More a bad taste in the mouth for me.
Getting over 80% of the vote in a two horse gig is a huge threshold. And for every JohnO, Nabbers and Fitalass and family there are also a decent number of frothers.
Even the frothers are beginning to sober up to what a disaster she is!
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
Team Leadsom has to get off #mumgate asap and get a total grip of their media operation, that frankly is a total shambles. If in political trouble, if you're explaining, you are losing.
After reading several posts yesterday re Labour MPs joining the LDs en masse as an escape pod from Corbyn - I was really struck by one thing.
Why would the LDs want this? Labour taking over as a Party Within A Party? Forcing a change of leader to elect their man? Destroying whatever identity the LDs still have?
Sounds a lot like Momentun and Labour to me. I hope the LDs have looked at their leadership election rules and ensured that they can't be infiltrated by those planning a hostile takeover.
All parties have a process before taking in defecting parliamentarians (or even councillors), and you are right that I could not see the LibDems accepting more than one or two as traditional defections. "Infiltration" would involve members, not MPs, and I don't think the LibDems are likely to be infiltrated by mass members coming from Labour.
Essentially it is the same position as in the 1980s - the number of potential defectors (assuming your scenario is valid) is such that some sort of new party is the only real option. And since they are largely devoid of a platform, other than being against Corbyn, I would expect the LDs to be a lot more wary about them than they were about the SDP (and for those old enough to remember, there was a good helping of wariness back then).
In one way, the "defecting" Labour MPs will not need a party. They will still claim to be Labour. It will be for the courts to sort out the assets [ CLP by CLP ].
Meanwhile , in the HoC , the Speaker will go by the numbers. If 150 Labour MPs said they were the LPP, then that will be it. The Speaker will only be interested in the HoC. What are Labour rules is not important to him.
All the more, I am gobsmacked about Angela Eagle. The above is the only viable scenario for the rebels. By doing the same after losing the Leadership election heavily, it would seem like sour grapes.
Like you I was trying to work out what their plan might be. Since Eagle isn't going to fly.
It is of course possible that they are just reacting from emotion and don't actually have a plan. This would explain a lot about their actions so far.
Or they just hope against hope that the membership comes round to what they see as the inevitable.
Or, if they are to consider something drastic like leaving, or trying to take the brand away from the left as you suggest, they need to have exhausted (and be seen to have exhausted) all other options first. It is a big leap and not one you would take if you had an alternative?
I think that Eagle is standing to get the process underway. If the NEC rules Corbyn needs nominations then she will have done her job.
Whatever happens it's unlikely she'll be the only candidate.
After reading several posts yesterday re Labour MPs joining the LDs en masse as an escape pod from Corbyn - I was really struck by one thing.
Why would the LDs want this? Labour taking over as a Party Within A Party? Forcing a change of leader to elect their man? Destroying whatever identity the LDs still have?
Sounds a lot like Momentun and Labour to me. I hope the LDs have looked at their leadership election rules and ensured that they can't be infiltrated by those planning a hostile takeover.
All parties have a process before taking in defecting parliamentarians (or even councillors), and you are right that I could not see the LibDems accepting more than one or two as traditional defections. "Infiltration" would involve members, not MPs, and I don't think the LibDems are likely to be infiltrated by mass members coming from Labour.
Essentially it is the same position as in the 1980s - the number of potential defectors (assuming your scenario is valid) is such that some sort of new party is the only real option. And since they are largely devoid of a platform, other than being against Corbyn, I would expect the LDs to be a lot more wary about them than they were about the SDP (and for those old enough to remember, there was a good helping of wariness back then).
In one way, the "defecting" Labour MPs will not need a party. They will still claim to be Labour. It will be for the courts to sort out the assets [ CLP by CLP ].
Meanwhile , in the HoC , the Speaker will go by the numbers. If 150 Labour MPs said they were the LPP, then that will be it. The Speaker will only be interested in the HoC. What are Labour rules is not important to him.
All the more, I am gobsmacked about Angela Eagle. The above is the only viable scenario for the rebels. By doing the same after losing the Leadership election heavily, it would seem like sour grapes.
True, if enough Labour MPs defect en masse they could become the official opposition overnight and as a by product create a small 'Real Labour' party led by Corbyn. What's to stop the Tories calling a GE (having got around the FTP act) and clean up? Labour MPs need to have thought all this through. They need to have an electoral pact in place with the LibDems and I can't see them agreeing to that without a commitment to PR. They should try to bring as many councillors and activists with them as possible on a local level. It must be really tricky being a Labour MP at the moment.
The irony is that PR would strengthen the far left who would have far more influence in coalition negotiations as an independent "real Labour" party than they do as part of a broad church Labour party which wins power under FPTP.
I think 2020 or later is a good shout to be honest, although I suspect the obvious date would be to leave on 31/12/19 providing the negotiations can be concluded satisfactorily to allow that. To that end I suspect that triggering of A50 will be Q1 2017 to allow a grace period in case negotiations to the 2019 date are difficult to conclude.
Of course it depends on who is running with the ball on this. The choice before the selectorate is between gung ho true believerism and cautious scepticism. I can understand the desire for just getting on and getting out, but there is so much to unwind and so much more to put in place that excessive haste may prove a less clean solution. The more deliberate and cautious approach means that the process of decoupling whilst slower will be more comprehensive. There are thousands of pieces of legislation that make reference to EU institutions, it isn't as simple as repealing the 1972 Act.
The other advantage of the slower more cautious approach is that it allows for the reassurance of the 16m who did not want this. The approach of certain true brexiteers seems very much to ignore those who voted to stay and rub their noses in it.
Q1 2017 triggering means Q1 2019 leaving.
Yes you are correct, don't post before coffee is probably the advice.
Leadsom’s biggest strength over May is that she backed Brexit. But a senior member of Vote Leave questioned her contribution. “This idea that Andrea was a leading light in the campaign is hilarious,” he said. “She was nicknamed Andrea Loathsome in the office. She was totally unreliable.”
Leadsom won plaudits from Eurosceptics for her performance in two televised debates during the referendum campaign. However, the source said: “She had to be coached within an inch of her life. Anyone who had any experience of her during the campaign from the professional side is dreading the idea that she would be prime minister because she is not up to it and a lightweight. She would be a f****** disaster as prime minister.”
If we do get a debate, it will be fun to see Leadsom answering every questions with "As a mother, let's take back control..."
Anonymous sources? Meh.
Ms Leadsom was one of the Vote Leave representatives in the two TV debate during the referendum campaign. That's the relevant fact.
It looks like she's going to get a rough ride from the media for the next few weeks, but she'll still be the Leave candidate, and Ms May will still be the Remain candidate.
Nevertheless this confirms my instinct when I watched the debate - as I posted on PB at the time. Yes I could see that she came across as personable and she spoke clearly and positively. So I could see why people liked her. But she was stilted and very repetitive, and the revelation that she isn't particularly good and was simply heavily coached for the debates comes as no surprise.
I see also in today's ST that a reasonable batch of Tory MPs say they will leave the party if she wins. And it took them so long to get their majority, too.
We are now in the situation where it is May or nothing, I think.
The spineless troughers will not follow through with their hollow threats.
One key thing is how "first full day outside the EU" plays out and is interpreted. Article 50 deals only with exit. You tie up the loose ends - multi year projects, what to do about expats etc - and then you leave. It doesn't deal with any alternative arrangement that requires treaty change. In principle that means we exit and then negotiate an FTA or membership of EEA, which comes into force several years later after the treaties have been ratified. In the meantime the UK would be in a WTO limbo.
This doesn't seem like a good way of doing things. It's more likely the parties will agree to coordinate exit from the EU with the start of the new arrangement. As it takes two years for the national parliaments to rubber stamp an already agreed treaty change, formal exit from the EU is likely to be at least four years after triggering Article 50
The risk with a bet like this is that even if a deal is negotiated for late 2019 (after an A50 2017 invocation following the French and German elections) that the deal could come into force on or around 1/1/20.
It's not unusual to see international agreements take effect on or around New Years Day.
Even the frothers are beginning to sober up to what a disaster she is!
But they have no choice. They have pinned their colours to Leadsom's mast hoping that a decent referendum debate performance might catapult her onward.
However it appears that she reached her peak a few weeks back and her true level is as a Minster of State, even though she may end up in the cabinet after the leadership race.
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
These are the questions asked.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?" ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
No, those were the supplementary questions. The opening question was "what is the main difference between you and Theresa May" - in answer to which there was no need to mention children at all. Whereas Leadsom offers up the fact that she has children as one of the main differences.
The irony is that PR would strengthen the far left who would have far more influence in coalition negotiations as an independent "real Labour" party than they do as part of a broad church Labour party which wins power under FPTP.
Up to a point, Mr JohnL, only up to a point. In other words, no.
With STV, the whole electorate of the area in question votes for all of its MPs. The Tory headbangers, for example, would naturally vote first for extreme Tory candidates and gradually, as these got elected, or did not get enough votes to stand any chance of winning, they would drop out and the votes would be transferred to other candidates, say dripping wet Tories or UKIP.
Likwise for extreme sociaists.
So if you have a four-member constituency, you would get an extreme socialist elected as an MP if he or she could attract one fifth of the votes available. And if he (or she) could do that, it would be fair enough, wouldn`t it?
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
These are the questions asked.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?" ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
It seems some people still haven't seen the fuller transcript, including the part where Leadsom first raised the question of her family. That was in answer to the question: “What is the main difference between you and Theresa May? "
According to Leadsom, the main difference was (1) her understanding of the economy and her focus on turning it round (22 words) and her family (64 words). The questions quoted above followed that answer.
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
These are the questions asked.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?" ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
No, that is wrong. ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?" is misattributed to the interviewer in a transcript tweeted by the Times, it is actually clearly said by Leadsom. An odd error by the Times as the true version obviously supports their case much better.
But even if there was a trap, that would be no excuse for falling in to it.
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
Team Leadsom has to get off #mumgate asap and get a total grip of their media operation, that frankly is a total shambles. If in political trouble, if you're explaining, you are losing.
Agreed. They now need to turn to the matter of her tax return.
Can I ask the Tories why May is so favoured? I see only a functionary, a Sir Humphrey-type who understands politics. Possibly John Major? I see the benefit in frightening times but with Brexit, we need a more dynamic leader, surely?
Leadsom is being assailed on all sides and I'm beginning to feel sorry for her, in the same way I began to have some sympathy for Jezza. I wouldn't vote for either, but the baying of the hysterical 'Establishment' can be counter-productive. It's why I voted Leave.
Leadsom is an establishment figure. She is just less popular. Peop,e use establishment anytime there seems to be a broadly consensus view. The consensus doesn't have to be right, but labelling it as establishment is conspiracy thinking to make it sound more sinister and not genuine. It's nonsense.
Team Leadsom has to get off #mumgate asap and get a total grip of their media operation, that frankly is a total shambles. If in political trouble, if you're explaining, you are losing.
@janinegibson: This is day three of talking about two PM candidates in terms of their maternal status.
@MChawlaQC: If you want a really clear, helpful analysis of the Leadsom comments to The Times, have a look at @anyabike tweets over the last 1/2 hour.
And doing a decent job of it. Although it doesn't mean he can't talk absolute cr*p now and in the future.
He is still not seeing how it is impossible for a Party Leader to continue when they don't command support within Parliament
He saying that Labour MPs exist to support Labour. However the reality of the situation is that they were elected to represent their constituents. Their duty is to their electorate first not Party.
Team Leadsom has to get off #mumgate asap and get a total grip of their media operation, that frankly is a total shambles. If in political trouble, if you're explaining, you are losing.
@janinegibson: This is day three of talking about two PM candidates in terms of their maternal status.
@MChawlaQC: If you want a really clear, helpful analysis of the Leadsom comments to The Times, have a look at @anyabike tweets over the last 1/2 hour.
@anyabike: I’ve highlighted in bold the part where *Leadsom* introduced the subject of family for Guido and anyone else who can’t see it.
I think the Leadsome camp simply think the whole thing is good for them. They think that the Tory electorate will be sympathetic to the view that a parent will make a better leader and don't care if it stays in the news.
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
These are the questions asked.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?" ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
No, that is wrong. ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?" is misattributed to the interviewer in a transcript tweeted by the Times, it is actually clearly said by Leadsom. An odd error by the Times as the true version obviously supports their case much better.
But even if there was a trap, that would be no excuse for falling in to it.
But Rachel Sylvester did a hatchet job. I have always wanted to know why journalists feel more proud on how they trapped somebody than in disseminating news.
I think 2020 or later is a good shout to be honest, although I suspect the obvious date would be to leave on 31/12/19 providing the negotiations can be concluded satisfactorily to allow that. To that end I suspect that triggering of A50 will be Q1 2017 to allow a grace period in case negotiations to the 2019 date are difficult to conclude.
Of course it depends on who is running with the ball on this. The choice before the selectorate is between gung ho true believerism and cautious scepticism. I can understand the desire for just getting on and getting out, but there is so much to unwind and so much more to put in place that excessive haste may prove a less clean solution. The more deliberate and cautious approach means that the process of decoupling whilst slower will be more comprehensive. There are thousands of pieces of legislation that make reference to EU institutions, it isn't as simple as repealing the 1972 Act.
The other advantage of the slower more cautious approach is that it allows for the reassurance of the 16m who did not want this. The approach of certain true brexiteers seems very much to ignore those who voted to stay and rub their noses in it.
Indeed, and in a "normal" election the WWC supporters that gave Leave their victory will probably revert to staying at home.
Not if the Conservatives have a Leave leader.
The past 4 general elections have had the lowest turnouts since ww2. Perhaps Ms Leadsom can breath life into the Thatcher coalition, and get GE turnout back >70%.
And doing a decent job of it. Although it doesn't mean he can't talk absolute cr*p now and in the future.
He is still not seeing how it is impossible for a Party Leader to continue when they don't command support within Parliament
He saying that Labour MPs exist to support Labour. However the reality of the situation is that they were elected to represent their constituents. Their duty is to their electorate first not Party.
MPs are a necessary evil in the pre-revolutionary parliament I guess.
Team Leadsom has to get off #mumgate asap and get a total grip of their media operation, that frankly is a total shambles. If in political trouble, if you're explaining, you are losing.
@janinegibson: This is day three of talking about two PM candidates in terms of their maternal status.
@MChawlaQC: If you want a really clear, helpful analysis of the Leadsom comments to The Times, have a look at @anyabike tweets over the last 1/2 hour.
@anyabike: I’ve highlighted in bold the part where *Leadsom* introduced the subject of family for Guido and anyone else who can’t see it.
I think the Leadsome camp simply think the whole thing is good for them. They think that the Tory electorate will be sympathetic to the view that a parent will make a better leader and don't care if it stays in the news.
No. I think what they think is that the "Establishment" will attack her from all angles and this will translate in sympathy votes for their candidate. You will have to look at the selectorate.
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
These are the questions asked.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?" ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
No, that is wrong. ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?" is misattributed to the interviewer in a transcript tweeted by the Times, it is actually clearly said by Leadsom. An odd error by the Times as the true version obviously supports their case much better.
But even if there was a trap, that would be no excuse for falling in to it.
But Rachel Sylvester did a hatchet job. I have always wanted to know why journalists feel more proud on how they trapped somebody than in disseminating news.
Didn’t seem like a "hatchet job" to me. Sounded as Leadsom picked the ground on which to make a case and messed it up.
Let's hope these talks as reported in the Times and Guardian come to something.
Tabman - you old rogue !! ..
Any notion of Liberal Democrats disbanding is to be severely deprecated not least because it would clearly lead to the closure of Auchentennach Fine Pies !!
Aside from the comical and quaint notion of "having at least one ideological principle" surely being the pro-European voice is an electoral plus for the LDs? It wouldn't be straightforward to prove, but it seems likely that the seepage of votes in the seats they lost to the Tories last time out were primarily see much Tory pickup as they broadly had the Leave voters anyway. So overall seems like an LD position that could be pretty effective.
I don't agree with Tim Farron's stance on this but I do understand it and tactically it could be astute and, if Leadsom wins, very astute.
The problems (and there are many) start with the premise the rest of the EU would allow us back on the same terms we rejected last month - that seems implausible.
There's the small matter of the democracy thing - we voted to LEAVE, some may be suffering buyers' remorse but it was a decision taken freely and fairly and with a respectable turnout behind it.
The question then becomes under what terms would we be allowed back - assuming we call it STAY and RETURN - what would be the basis of RETURN ? The Euro ? Schengen ? I doubt the EU would be that stupid or vindictive but it stretches magnamity to assume there would be no price to pay at all.
An LD position of " we will support a minority Conservative or Labour administration only if it commits to a second Referendum on negotiated terms of re-entry to the EU within 24 months" would be clear but I can't see either of the main parties being comfortable though the reality of the acquisition or retention of power often changes minds quite effectively.
The idea of the LibDems - even doubling up with say 15% of the vote - being able to dictate policy on the EU over the 52% who voted to Leave on a higher turnout, is grotesque.
The 52% are very welcome to vote in a GE. If they all prioritise their anti-EU beliefs and vote the same way the party they support will win a landslide and the LDs will be able to dictate nothing.
Indeed. There's nothing wrong with the ld position, which would rely on getting democratic support to bring into action, and the other parties will be options for people to choose to prevent. Now, the ld position woukd be a hard sell even for many remainers but they're free to try it. There is the question of what would they ask for ina hung parliament scenario, but it would be on the others not to give in on specific points.
4 years to a GE where Labour's mess will probably be sorted by then, I wonder if the LDs will have as much opportunity as it seems though.
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
These are the questions asked.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?" ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
No, that is wrong. ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?" is misattributed to the interviewer in a transcript tweeted by the Times, it is actually clearly said by Leadsom. An odd error by the Times as the true version obviously supports their case much better.
But even if there was a trap, that would be no excuse for falling in to it.
But Rachel Sylvester did a hatchet job. I have always wanted to know why journalists feel more proud on how they trapped somebody than in disseminating news.
Didn’t seem like a "hatchet job" to me. Sounded as Leadsom picked the ground on which to make a case and messed it up.
The headline included words that Leadsom actually did not say.
And doing a decent job of it. Although it doesn't mean he can't talk absolute cr*p now and in the future.
He is still not seeing how it is impossible for a Party Leader to continue when they don't command support within Parliament
He saying that Labour MPs exist to support Labour. However the reality of the situation is that they were elected to represent their constituents. Their duty is to their electorate first not Party.
I think 2020 or later is a good shout to be honest, although I suspect the obvious date would be to leave on 31/12/19 providing the negotiations can be concluded satisfactorily to allow that. To that end I suspect that triggering of A50 will be Q1 2017 to allow a grace period in case negotiations to the 2019 date are difficult to conclude.
Of course it depends on who is running with the ball on this. The choice before the selectorate is between gung ho true believerism and cautious scepticism. I can understand the desire for just getting on and getting out, but there is so much to unwind and so much more to put in place that excessive haste may prove a less clean solution. The more deliberate and cautious approach means that the process of decoupling whilst slower will be more comprehensive. There are thousands of pieces of legislation that make reference to EU institutions, it isn't as simple as repealing the 1972 Act.
The other advantage of the slower more cautious approach is that it allows for the reassurance of the 16m who did not want this. The approach of certain true brexiteers seems very much to ignore those who voted to stay and rub their noses in it.
Indeed, and in a "normal" election the WWC supporters that gave Leave their victory will probably revert to staying at home.
Not if the Conservatives have a Leave leader.
The past 4 general elections have had the lowest turnouts since ww2. Perhaps Ms Leadsom can breath life into the Thatcher coalition, and get GE turnout back >70%.
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
These are the questions asked.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?" ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
No, that is wrong. ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?" is misattributed to the interviewer in a transcript tweeted by the Times, it is actually clearly said by Leadsom. An odd error by the Times as the true version obviously supports their case much better.
But even if there was a trap, that would be no excuse for falling in to it.
But Rachel Sylvester did a hatchet job. I have always wanted to know why journalists feel more proud on how they trapped somebody than in disseminating news.
Didn’t seem like a "hatchet job" to me. Sounded as Leadsom picked the ground on which to make a case and messed it up.
The headline included words that Leadsom actually did not say.
Despite her protestations, however, her prefacing her remarks by saying she wasn't, she did clearly draw a comparison between herself and may nd suggest being a mother made her a better leader, by being more invested. The words she said imply that, even if she says rpthen didn't.
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
These are the questions asked.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?" ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
No, that is wrong. ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?" is misattributed to the interviewer in a transcript tweeted by the Times, it is actually clearly said by Leadsom. An odd error by the Times as the true version obviously supports their case much better.
But even if there was a trap, that would be no excuse for falling in to it.
But Rachel Sylvester did a hatchet job. I have always wanted to know why journalists feel more proud on how they trapped somebody than in disseminating news.
Didn’t seem like a "hatchet job" to me. Sounded as Leadsom picked the ground on which to make a case and messed it up.
The headline included words that Leadsom actually did not say.
Since when were headlines ever quotes? It was, however, an entirely accurate summary of the point Leadsom was trying to make.
It is an interesting exercise to speculate what headline the Mail or Sun would put on the same story!
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
These are the questions asked.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?" ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
No, that is wrong. ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?" is misattributed to the interviewer in a transcript tweeted by the Times, it is actually clearly said by Leadsom. An odd error by the Times as the true version obviously supports their case much better.
But even if there was a trap, that would be no excuse for falling in to it.
But Rachel Sylvester did a hatchet job. I have always wanted to know why journalists feel more proud on how they trapped somebody than in disseminating news.
Didn’t seem like a "hatchet job" to me. Sounded as Leadsom picked the ground on which to make a case and messed it up.
The headline included words that Leadsom actually did not say.
Even if that is true, that is nothing to do with the journalist. She wouldn't have written the headline.
Let's hope these talks as reported in the Times and Guardian come to something.
Tabman - you old rogue !! ..
Any notion of Liberal Democrats disbanding is to be severely deprecated not least because it would clearly lead to the closure of Auchentennach Fine Pies !!
And doing a decent job of it. Although it doesn't mean he can't talk absolute cr*p now and in the future.
He is still not seeing how it is impossible for a Party Leader to continue when they don't command support within Parliament
He saying that Labour MPs exist to support Labour. However the reality of the situation is that they were elected to represent their constituents. Their duty is to their electorate first not Party.
Horse shit ! So, in 2020, who will canvass for these MPs ? So, party members are just supposed to be fodders.
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
These are the questions asked.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?" ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
No, that is wrong. ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?" is misattributed to the interviewer in a transcript tweeted by the Times, it is actually clearly said by Leadsom. An odd error by the Times as the true version obviously supports their case much better.
But even if there was a trap, that would be no excuse for falling in to it.
But Rachel Sylvester did a hatchet job. I have always wanted to know why journalists feel more proud on how they trapped somebody than in disseminating news.
Didn’t seem like a "hatchet job" to me. Sounded as Leadsom picked the ground on which to make a case and messed it up.
The headline included words that Leadsom actually did not say.
"Crisis? What crisis?" included words that Callaghan did not actually say. Headlines are allowed to summarise.
And doing a decent job of it. Although it doesn't mean he can't talk absolute cr*p now and in the future.
He is still not seeing how it is impossible for a Party Leader to continue when they don't command support within Parliament
He saying that Labour MPs exist to support Labour. However the reality of the situation is that they were elected to represent their constituents. Their duty is to their electorate first not Party.
That last line is hilarious
MPs are elected as the Member for a given constituency. That is how our system works. Representative democracy works in that way.
If you find that hilarious, you have a very warped sense of humour
Team Leadsom has to get off #mumgate asap and get a total grip of their media operation, that frankly is a total shambles. If in political trouble, if you're explaining, you are losing.
@janinegibson: This is day three of talking about two PM candidates in terms of their maternal status.
@MChawlaQC: If you want a really clear, helpful analysis of the Leadsom comments to The Times, have a look at @anyabike tweets over the last 1/2 hour.
@anyabike: I’ve highlighted in bold the part where *Leadsom* introduced the subject of family for Guido and anyone else who can’t see it.
I think the Leadsome camp simply think the whole thing is good for them. They think that the Tory electorate will be sympathetic to the view that a parent will make a better leader and don't care if it stays in the news.
And feeling persecuted helps with the 'antiestablishment ' crowd.
Let's hope these talks as reported in the Times and Guardian come to something.
Tabman - you old rogue !! ..
Any notion of Liberal Democrats disbanding is to be severely deprecated not least because it would clearly lead to the closure of Auchentennach Fine Pies !!
Could you not cater to a new market?
Surely there are enough pb Tories to make pie production viable, particularly the ever popular roast baby and turnip pie?
Aside from the comical and quaint notion of "having at least one ideological principle" surely being the pro-European voice is an electoral plus for the LDs? It wouldn't be straightforward to prove, but it seems likely that the seepage of votes in the seats they lost to the Tories last time out were primarily see much Tory pickup as they broadly had the Leave voters anyway. So overall seems like an LD position that could be pretty effective.
I don't agree with Tim Farron's stance on this but I do understand it and tactically it could be astute and, if Leadsom wins, very astute.
The problems (and there are many) start with the premise the rest of the EU would allow us back on the same terms we rejected last month - that seems implausible.
There's the small matter of the democracy thing - we voted to LEAVE, some may be suffering buyers' remorse but it was a decision taken freely and fairly and with a respectable turnout behind it.
The question then becomes under what terms would we be allowed back - assuming we call it STAY and RETURN - what would be the basis of RETURN ? The Euro ? Schengen ? I doubt the EU would be that stupid or vindictive but it stretches magnamity to assume there would be no price to pay at all.
An LD position of " we will support a minority Conservative or Labour administration only if it commits to a second Referendum on negotiated terms of re-entry to the EU within 24 months" would be clear but I can't see either of the main parties being comfortable though the reality of the acquisition or retention of power often changes minds quite effectively.
The idea of the LibDems - even doubling up with say 15% of the vote - being able to dictate policy on the EU over the 52% who voted to Leave on a higher turnout, is grotesque.
The 52% are very welcome to vote in a GE. If they all prioritise their anti-EU beliefs and vote the same way the party they support will win a landslide and the LDs will be able to dictate nothing.
Indeed. There's nothing wrong with the ld position, which would rely on getting democratic support to bring into action, and the other parties will be options for people to choose to prevent. Now, the ld position woukd be a hard sell even for many remainers but they're free to try it. There is the question of what would they ask for ina hung parliament scenario, but it would be on the others not to give in on specific points.
4 years to a GE where Labour's mess will probably be sorted by then, I wonder if the LDs will have as much opportunity as it seems though.
If the Leave case is a good one, it would win a second referendum.
Jeremy Corbyn is performing very well on Marr. Marr is throwing all sorts of bombs his way, and he's defusing them nicely. A great answer to "do you accept you have at least some of the blame?" Leadsom should take notes!
I think 2020 or later is a good shout to be honest, although I suspect the obvious date would be to leave on 31/12/19 providing the negotiations can be concluded satisfactorily to allow that. To that end I suspect that triggering of A50 will be Q1 2017 to allow a grace period in case negotiations to the 2019 date are difficult to conclude.
Of course it depends on who is running with the ball on this. The choice before the selectorate is between gung ho true believerism and cautious scepticism. I can understand the desire for just getting on and getting out, but there is so much to unwind and so much more to put in place that excessive haste may prove a less clean solution. The more deliberate and cautious approach means that the process of decoupling whilst slower will be more comprehensive. There are thousands of pieces of legislation that make reference to EU institutions, it isn't as simple as repealing the 1972 Act.
The other advantage of the slower more cautious approach is that it allows for the reassurance of the 16m who did not want this. The approach of certain true brexiteers seems very much to ignore those who voted to stay and rub their noses in it.
Q1 2017 triggering means Q1 2019 leaving.
Unless the time period is extended, if the negotiations are going well and there is a deal on the cards then it wouldn't be hard to extend the two years. If we're at an impasse then I doubt we would be able to get one.
If the HoTs are agreed, and we're in the minutiae of sorting out legalese and appropriate repeal and enactment of new laws, then I can easily see the need for a 12 month extension.
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
These are the questions asked.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?" ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
No, that is wrong. ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?" is misattributed to the interviewer in a transcript tweeted by the Times, it is actually clearly said by Leadsom. An odd error by the Times as the true version obviously supports their case much better.
But even if there was a trap, that would be no excuse for falling in to it.
But Rachel Sylvester did a hatchet job. I have always wanted to know why journalists feel more proud on how they trapped somebody than in disseminating news.
Didn’t seem like a "hatchet job" to me. Sounded as Leadsom picked the ground on which to make a case and messed it up.
The headline included words that Leadsom actually did not say.
"Crisis? What crisis?" included words that Callaghan did not actually say. Headlines are allowed to summarise.
So why bother with articles ? If the headline is designed to misrepresent whatever someone is saying to the advantage of the journalist's political / social preference, then I can see why journalists are also considered loathsome [ no pun intended ] characters.
Team Leadsom has to get off #mumgate asap and get a total grip of their media operation, that frankly is a total shambles. If in political trouble, if you're explaining, you are losing.
@janinegibson: This is day three of talking about two PM candidates in terms of their maternal status.
@MChawlaQC: If you want a really clear, helpful analysis of the Leadsom comments to The Times, have a look at @anyabike tweets over the last 1/2 hour.
And doing a decent job of it. Although it doesn't mean he can't talk absolute cr*p now and in the future.
He is still not seeing how it is impossible for a Party Leader to continue when they don't command support within Parliament
He saying that Labour MPs exist to support Labour. However the reality of the situation is that they were elected to represent their constituents. Their duty is to their electorate first not Party.
Horse shit ! So, in 2020, who will canvass for these MPs ? So, party members are just supposed to be fodders.
Another one who doesn't believe in democracy.
Parties have a major role in our democracy - but when it comes to being a Member of Parliament, the duty to represent your constituents is paramount. That is why if you leave your Party, you still retain your seat because that is the job you were elected to do.
MPs are not just fodder for the whips and leadership.
Let's hope these talks as reported in the Times and Guardian come to something.
Tabman - you old rogue !! ..
Any notion of Liberal Democrats disbanding is to be severely deprecated not least because it would clearly lead to the closure of Auchentennach Fine Pies !!
Perhaps you could diversify :-D
Having undertaken extensive research in the past it's absolutely clear that the Liberal Democrats are the first choice in this matter .... if in no other !! ....
And doing a decent job of it. Although it doesn't mean he can't talk absolute cr*p now and in the future.
He is still not seeing how it is impossible for a Party Leader to continue when they don't command support within Parliament
He saying that Labour MPs exist to support Labour. However the reality of the situation is that they were elected to represent their constituents. Their duty is to their electorate first not Party.
That last line is hilarious
MPs are elected as the Member for a given constituency. That is how our system works. Representative democracy works in that way.
If you find that hilarious, you have a very warped sense of humour
My MP was a Remainer, his constituency voted 62% to Leave, he was well aware of that beforehand. He was interested in toadying not his constituency.
Leadsom’s biggest strength over May is that she backed Brexit. But a senior member of Vote Leave questioned her contribution. “This idea that Andrea was a leading light in the campaign is hilarious,” he said. “She was nicknamed Andrea Loathsome in the office. She was totally unreliable.”
Leadsom won plaudits from Eurosceptics for her performance in two televised debates during the referendum campaign. However, the source said: “She had to be coached within an inch of her life. Anyone who had any experience of her during the campaign from the professional side is dreading the idea that she would be prime minister because she is not up to it and a lightweight. She would be a f****** disaster as prime minister.”
If we do get a debate, it will be fun to see Leadsom answering every questions with "As a mother, let's take back control..."
Anonymous sources? Meh.
Ms Leadsom was one of the Vote Leave representatives in the two TV debate during the referendum campaign. That's the relevant fact.
It looks like she's going to get a rough ride from the media for the next few weeks, but she'll still be the Leave candidate, and Ms May will still be the Remain candidate.
Nevertheless this confirms my instinct when I watched the debate - as I posted on PB at the time. Yes I could see that she came across as personable and she spoke clearly and positively. So I could see why people liked her. But she was stilted and very repetitive, and the revelation that she isn't particularly good and was simply heavily coached for the debates comes as no surprise.
I see also in today's ST that a reasonable batch of Tory MPs say they will leave the party if she wins. And it took them so long to get their majority, too.
We are now in the situation where it is May or nothing, I think.
The spineless troughers will not follow through with their hollow threats.
Well exactly. Put it this way, if Corbyn, mr principled, could stay In His party no problem all these years, people will do the reverse, and the same applies to the Tories.,
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
These are the questions asked.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?" ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
No, that is wrong. ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?" is misattributed to the interviewer in a transcript tweeted by the Times, it is actually clearly said by Leadsom. An odd error by the Times as the true version obviously supports their case much better.
But even if there was a trap, that would be no excuse for falling in to it.
But Rachel Sylvester did a hatchet job. I have always wanted to know why journalists feel more proud on how they trapped somebody than in disseminating news.
No, Leadsom having seen the juggernaut approaching proceeded to fling herself under it with abandon.
Tim Laughton, Leadsom's campaign manager, on Marr.
Making a game attempt to turn the question Leadsom was asked into "what motivates you in politics?". Sadly not what she was asked.
These are the questions asked.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?" ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
No, that is wrong. ""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?" is misattributed to the interviewer in a transcript tweeted by the Times, it is actually clearly said by Leadsom. An odd error by the Times as the true version obviously supports their case much better.
But even if there was a trap, that would be no excuse for falling in to it.
But Rachel Sylvester did a hatchet job. I have always wanted to know why journalists feel more proud on how they trapped somebody than in disseminating news.
Didn’t seem like a "hatchet job" to me. Sounded as Leadsom picked the ground on which to make a case and messed it up.
The headline included words that Leadsom actually did not say.
"Crisis? What crisis?" included words that Callaghan did not actually say. Headlines are allowed to summarise.
So why bother with articles ? If the headline is designed to misrepresent whatever someone is saying to the advantage of the journalist's political / social preference, then I can see why journalists are also considered loathsome [ no pun intended ] characters.
"Summarise" does not mean "misrepresent". Headlines are designed to tempt you to read the article for yourself.
Team Leadsom has to get off #mumgate asap and get a total grip of their media operation, that frankly is a total shambles. If in political trouble, if you're explaining, you are losing.
@janinegibson: This is day three of talking about two PM candidates in terms of their maternal status.
@MChawlaQC: If you want a really clear, helpful analysis of the Leadsom comments to The Times, have a look at @anyabike tweets over the last 1/2 hour.
@anyabike: I’ve highlighted in bold the part where *Leadsom* introduced the subject of family for Guido and anyone else who can’t see it.
I think the Leadsome camp simply think the whole thing is good for them. They think that the Tory electorate will be sympathetic to the view that a parent will make a better leader and don't care if it stays in the news.
Personally don't care much about it either way. If someone believes that their family experience has given their politics more meaning - well that's their view.
We see this sort of thing repeated endlessly:
- brought up on council estate - adopted - son of a bus driver - child of single parent - was a charity worker - understands business - blah blah blah
It's simply a dimension of one's personal identity, and what you think plays well with your target audience at the time.
The tip last night on May at over 80% of the vote at 18/1 is tasty! (Skybet)
Not so tasty I fear. More a bad taste in the mouth for me.
Getting over 80% of the vote in a two horse gig is a huge threshold. And for every JohnO, Nabbers and Fitalass and family there are also a decent number of frothers.
Even the frothers are beginning to sober up to what a disaster she is!
The tip last night on May at over 80% of the vote at 18/1 is tasty! (Skybet)
Not so tasty I fear. More a bad taste in the mouth for me.
Getting over 80% of the vote in a two horse gig is a huge threshold. And for every JohnO, Nabbers and Fitalass and family there are also a decent number of frothers.
I'd say 60/40 for May is the most likely outcome.
If the EEA/FoM are discussed more and more, and given the impression that after the vote that is what the strategy will be, Leadsom will win !
Surely the bulk of the campaign will be around what their Brexit plans will be? So we should get an idea room for each and how much the membership fears any amount of FOM. Leadsom can win this.
And doing a decent job of it. Although it doesn't mean he can't talk absolute cr*p now and in the future.
He is still not seeing how it is impossible for a Party Leader to continue when they don't command support within Parliament
He saying that Labour MPs exist to support Labour. However the reality of the situation is that they were elected to represent their constituents. Their duty is to their electorate first not Party.
That last line is hilarious
MPs are elected as the Member for a given constituency. That is how our system works. Representative democracy works in that way.
If you find that hilarious, you have a very warped sense of humour
My MP was a Remainer, his constituency voted 62% to Leave, he was well aware of that beforehand. He was interested in toadying not his constituency.
There has been no vote on the EU in Parliament. No MPs have cast a vote on the EU as representatives of their constituents. Their vote was of no greater value than anyone else's.
The interesting question is what happens if there IS required to be a vote in Parliament - do MPs vote with their consituents or with the country?
The headline included words that Leadsom actually did not say.
The way it works is that if you see the little things called quotation marks, like this "...", then those are the actual words someone has said. When you don't see those little things, then they are someone else's words.
So the question isn't whether Leadsom actually used the word "edge", but whether she was indicating that Leadsom's motherhood, in contrast to May's childlessness, was a significant difference between them, which would be to Leadsom's advantage as leader?
Does anyone really think that wasn't what Leadsom meant by it? If so, what do they think she did mean by it?
Leadsom’s biggest strength over May is that she backed Brexit. But a senior member of Vote Leave questioned her contribution. “This idea that Andrea was a leading light in the campaign is hilarious,” he said. “She was nicknamed Andrea Loathsome in the office. She was totally unreliable.”
Leadsom won plaudits from Eurosceptics for her performance in two televised debates during the referendum campaign. However, the source said: “She had to be coached within an inch of her life. Anyone who had any experience of her during the campaign from the professional side is dreading the idea that she would be prime minister because she is not up to it and a lightweight. She would be a f****** disaster as prime minister.”
If we do get a debate, it will be fun to see Leadsom answering every questions with "As a mother, let's take back control..."
Anonymous sources? Meh.
Ms Leadsom was one of the Vote Leave representatives in the two TV debate during the referendum campaign. That's the relevant fact.
It looks like she's going to get a rough ride from the media for the next few weeks, but she'll still be the Leave candidate, and Ms May will still be the Remain candidate.
Nevertheless this confirms my instinct when I watched the debate - as I posted on PB at the time. Yes I could see that she came across as personable and she spoke clearly and positively. So I could see why people liked her. But she was stilted and very repetitive, and the revelation that she isn't particularly good and was simply heavily coached for the debates comes as no surprise.
I see also in today's ST that a reasonable batch of Tory MPs say they will leave the party if she wins. And it took them so long to get their majority, too.
We are now in the situation where it is May or nothing, I think.
The spineless troughers will not follow through with their hollow threats.
Well exactly. Put it this way, if Corbyn, mr principled, could stay In His party no problem all these years, people will do the reverse, and the same applies to the Tories.,
Because Corbyn was always waiting for the revolution.
Jeremy Corbyn is performing very well on Marr. Marr is throwing all sorts of bombs his way, and he's defusing them nicely. A great answer to "do you accept you have at least some of the blame?" Leadsom should take notes!
Team Leadsom has to get off #mumgate asap and get a total grip of their media operation, that frankly is a total shambles. If in political trouble, if you're explaining, you are losing.
@janinegibson: This is day three of talking about two PM candidates in terms of their maternal status.
@MChawlaQC: If you want a really clear, helpful analysis of the Leadsom comments to The Times, have a look at @anyabike tweets over the last 1/2 hour.
@anyabike: I’ve highlighted in bold the part where *Leadsom* introduced the subject of family for Guido and anyone else who can’t see it.
I think the Leadsome camp simply think the whole thing is good for them. They think that the Tory electorate will be sympathetic to the view that a parent will make a better leader and don't care if it stays in the news.
Personally don't care much about it either way. If someone believes that their family experience has given their politics more meaning - well that's their view.
We see this sort of thing repeated endlessly:
- brought up on council estate - adopted - son of a bus driver - child of single parent - was a charity worker - understands business - blah blah blah
It's simply a dimension of one's personal identity, and what you think plays well with your target audience at the time.
This is where political debate among conservatives has got to, no policy, no principles, no vision. May will become PM by sitting on the fence for 20 years.
The headline included words that Leadsom actually did not say.
The way it works is that if you see the little things called quotation marks, like this "...", then those are the actual words someone has said. When you don't see those little things, then they are someone else's words.
So the question isn't whether Leadsom actually used the word "edge", but whether she was indicating that Leadsom's motherhood, in contrast to May's childlessness, was a significant difference between them, which would be to Leadsom's advantage as leader?
Does anyone really think that wasn't what Leadsom meant by it? If so, what do they think she did mean by it?
She indeed did mean that, loathsome character that she is, but The Times decided to put the boot in, unnecessarily.
Look. I want us out of the EU, the ECHR and but for our veto I would say the same about the UN which is, like the EU an utterly corrupt spewer of liberal left values. I would far rather just have WTO terms than go into EFTA/EEA and far rather have complete UK control over all aspects of immigration.
But then there is the real world. We have been in EU and EFTA before it since 1960. You cannot just realign your entire economy overnight, regardless of who gets hurt.
There is no reasonable choice other than EFTA/EEA. Join that, make use of its rules to stop people coming over to do unskilled work that they could not live on without benefits and the immigration problem largely goes away. It will also allow us to block immigration from any new country joining the EU.
Meanwhile we can steadily agree bilateral trade deals with non EU countries and re establish the Commonwealth as a supranational institution. In time hopefully we will see free movement (but without benefits/NHS until 5 year residency unless reciprocal offered (eg Australian NHS) with Australia, Nz, Canada and even South Africa and who knows, if the commonwealth becomes a powerful world institution even the US and Ireland might want to join (and maybe even China might decide it suits its purposes for HK to do so).
But none of this can be done overnight and we have to keep stability in the meanwhile. The stronger we get the less we can be pushed around, EEA/EFTA gives us this stable platform to relaunch to the world.
If we go for a maoist purity of doctrine and reject even EEA/EFTA now it could be a disaster which will prevent Brexit.
Slowly, gently, catchy Monkey.
Vote May.
Let me know what you started drinking on a Sunday morning.
The British People never wanted the Commonwealth reduced to a ceremonial institiution. Neither did the people of the commonwealth or the head of the Commonwealth.
It was the enemy without that did to further their vested interests aided by the enemy within, people such as Duncan Sandys.
Within 20 years the Commonwealth heads of government meetings will be as important as EU summits are now.
And doing a decent job of it. Although it doesn't mean he can't talk absolute cr*p now and in the future.
He is still not seeing how it is impossible for a Party Leader to continue when they don't command support within Parliament
He saying that Labour MPs exist to support Labour. However the reality of the situation is that they were elected to represent their constituents. Their duty is to their electorate first not Party.
That last line is hilarious
MPs are elected as the Member for a given constituency. That is how our system works. Representative democracy works in that way.
If you find that hilarious, you have a very warped sense of humour
My MP was a Remainer, his constituency voted 62% to Leave, he was well aware of that beforehand. He was interested in toadying not his constituency.
Did he vote in favour or against letting your constituency (and the rest of the nation) have a free Voe.
Having allowed a free vote I see no reason MPs shouldn't take that themselves. Your MP was one vote of tens of thousands in your constituency but one of only hundreds in the country when it came to allowing the vote.
And doing a decent job of it. Although it doesn't mean he can't talk absolute cr*p now and in the future.
He is still not seeing how it is impossible for a Party Leader to continue when they don't command support within Parliament
He saying that Labour MPs exist to support Labour. However the reality of the situation is that they were elected to represent their constituents. Their duty is to their electorate first not Party.
That last line is hilarious
MPs are elected as the Member for a given constituency. That is how our system works. Representative democracy works in that way.
If you find that hilarious, you have a very warped sense of humour
My MP was a Remainer, his constituency voted 62% to Leave, he was well aware of that beforehand. He was interested in toadying not his constituency.
There has been no vote on the EU in Parliament. No MPs have cast a vote on the EU as representatives of their constituents. Their vote was of no greater value than anyone else's.
The interesting question is what happens if there IS required to be a vote in Parliament - do MPs vote with their consituents or with the country?
Comments
Getting over 80% of the vote in a two horse gig is a huge threshold. And for every JohnO, Nabbers and Fitalass and family there are also a decent number of frothers.
With hindsight I think through time the Liberals have been able to reshape the LDs more to resemble their heritage and attitudes, although there is no doubt that at national level the party became significantly more professional during that time. The previous local constituency attitude to Liberal Party HQ was that the weaker and more useless it was the less damage it could do.
It is interesting to see where a lot of the more senior SDP defectors ended up - quite a few of them made the journey from Labour to Tory via the SDP. I believe both Truss and Soubry are ex-SDP.
- reassess EU membership (perhaps through a non-irresponsible referendum on such a major constitutional change with a two-thirds threshold)
- reverse Osbome's 15pc corporation tax with a 9pc rise raising £18bn a year
- spend all money raised on NHS. There's even a second hand battlebus available with the weekly total written on the side
Of course it depends on who is running with the ball on this. The choice before the selectorate is between gung ho true believerism and cautious scepticism. I can understand the desire for just getting on and getting out, but there is so much to unwind and so much more to put in place that excessive haste may prove a less clean solution. The more deliberate and cautious approach means that the process of decoupling whilst slower will be more comprehensive. There are thousands of pieces of legislation that make reference to EU institutions, it isn't as simple as repealing the 1972 Act.
The other advantage of the slower more cautious approach is that it allows for the reassurance of the 16m who did not want this. The approach of certain true brexiteers seems very much to ignore those who voted to stay and rub their noses in it.
What's to stop the Tories calling a GE (having got around the FTP act) and clean up?
Labour MPs need to have thought all this through. They need to have an electoral pact in place with the LibDems and I can't see them agreeing to that without a commitment to PR.
They should try to bring as many councillors and activists with them as possible on a local level.
It must be really tricky being a Labour MP at the moment.
She should be setting out a positive position-based agenda for where she will take the country. Instead, she wants to surf a complacent establishment position, while people just shout ever more loudly about how ghastly the other side is. Reasonable, moderate points against the other side are ramped up to a hysterical quality, and supporters of the other side are told they stupid zealots.
It's obviously a terrible strategy as it has just been shown to fail so much, yet they continue anyway? Why? Do these people learn nothing? Perhaps there's a section of the UK population that is so unable to deal with losing their emotion drives them to arguments they know will backfire.
"During the debates you repeatedly said as a mum. Do you feel like a mum in politics?"
""So it really keeps you focused on what are you really saying?"
Sounds a lot like motivation questions to me. She expressly said she didn't want it to be a comparison to May. Personally, I think she is lacking experience in gotcha interviews, but that does not make the reaction any more ridiculous.
Whatever happens it's unlikely she'll be the only candidate.
This doesn't seem like a good way of doing things. It's more likely the parties will agree to coordinate exit from the EU with the start of the new arrangement. As it takes two years for the national parliaments to rubber stamp an already agreed treaty change, formal exit from the EU is likely to be at least four years after triggering Article 50
It's not unusual to see international agreements take effect on or around New Years Day.
However it appears that she reached her peak a few weeks back and her true level is as a Minster of State, even though she may end up in the cabinet after the leadership race.
With STV, the whole electorate of the area in question votes for all of its MPs. The Tory headbangers, for example, would naturally vote first for extreme Tory candidates and gradually, as these got elected, or did not get enough votes to stand any chance of winning, they would drop out and the votes would be transferred to other candidates, say dripping wet Tories or UKIP.
Likwise for extreme sociaists.
So if you have a four-member constituency, you would get an extreme socialist elected as an MP if he or she could attract one fifth of the votes available. And if he (or she) could do that, it would be fair enough, wouldn`t it?
“What is the main difference between you and Theresa May? "
According to Leadsom, the main difference was (1) her understanding of the economy and her focus on turning it round (22 words) and her family (64 words). The questions quoted above followed that answer.
But even if there was a trap, that would be no excuse for falling in to it.
Regarding matching timing with the election, I don't think the Government will make it so far regardless of who is leader.
See also Hammond's comments about informal bilateral talks. There will be a lot of that.
@MChawlaQC: If you want a really clear, helpful analysis of the Leadsom comments to The Times, have a look at @anyabike tweets over the last 1/2 hour.
@anyabike: And here’s a transcript of that audio segment. https://t.co/hNcwDiywzt
@anyabike: I’ve highlighted in bold the part where *Leadsom* introduced the subject of family for Guido and anyone else who can’t see it.
He saying that Labour MPs exist to support Labour. However the reality of the situation is that they were elected to represent their constituents. Their duty is to their electorate first not Party.
Let's hope these talks as reported in the Times and Guardian come to something.
The past 4 general elections have had the lowest turnouts since ww2. Perhaps Ms Leadsom can breath life into the Thatcher coalition, and get GE turnout back >70%.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/turnout.htm
Chrisg0000
David Cameron
vs
Gay Times
1 bad interview does not sink a leadership
#Leadsom
#marr https://t.co/wuUJ1O8Crh
Any notion of Liberal Democrats disbanding is to be severely deprecated not least because it would clearly lead to the closure of Auchentennach Fine Pies !!
4 years to a GE where Labour's mess will probably be sorted by then, I wonder if the LDs will have as much opportunity as it seems though.
It is an interesting exercise to speculate what headline the Mail or Sun would put on the same story!
If you find that hilarious, you have a very warped sense of humour
Surely there are enough pb Tories to make pie production viable, particularly the ever popular roast baby and turnip pie?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ed+miliband+burger&rlz=1T4GUEA_enGB695GB695&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1g-iqw-jNAhUBAcAKHY6BAbMQsAQIHQ
Parties have a major role in our democracy - but when it comes to being a Member of Parliament, the duty to represent your constituents is paramount. That is why if you leave your Party, you still retain your seat because that is the job you were elected to do.
MPs are not just fodder for the whips and leadership.
Balls and Warsi on the paper review/pundit team
We see this sort of thing repeated endlessly:
- brought up on council estate
- adopted
- son of a bus driver
- child of single parent
- was a charity worker
- understands business
- blah blah blah
It's simply a dimension of one's personal identity, and what you think plays well with your target audience at the time.
The interesting question is what happens if there IS required to be a vote in Parliament - do MPs vote with their consituents or with the country?
So the question isn't whether Leadsom actually used the word "edge", but whether she was indicating that Leadsom's motherhood, in contrast to May's childlessness, was a significant difference between them, which would be to Leadsom's advantage as leader?
Does anyone really think that wasn't what Leadsom meant by it? If so, what do they think she did mean by it?
It was the enemy without that did to further their vested interests aided by the enemy within, people such as Duncan Sandys.
Within 20 years the Commonwealth heads of government meetings will be as important as EU summits are now.
Having allowed a free vote I see no reason MPs shouldn't take that themselves. Your MP was one vote of tens of thousands in your constituency but one of only hundreds in the country when it came to allowing the vote.