She should be giving a timetable for a leadership election. She lost an election that she called and the public did not support her. I always felt she was completely devoid of the qualities that leadership requires. She has no personality and no ideas for making the country a better place to live. Her adoption of the referendum result as a mandate has now been superseded by yesterdays General Election. She wanted an election on Brexit, lost it and now has the temerity and brass neck to stay on as PM. I snort with derision that a leader lacking a mandate in Theresa May will be supported by the DUP which have a leader who also refuses to go despite her involvement in one of the most incompetent policies I have ever scene.
The headbangers won't support soft Brexit. The rest won't support hard Brexit.
Ken Clarke is part of the Tories' wafer thin majority with the DUP.
As I posted about 7 a.m. - Ken Clarke for Prime Minister!
Clarke would be a great choice as PM of national unity. Why not? Would be best choice for the country at this critical hour.
Father of the nation. He's earned it, and he's the only viable unifying figure. But, it would need to be predicated on an acceptance that his job is to reverse Brexit and I'm not sure we're politically ready for that yet. More pain needs to be administered first.
But a vote for labour was hardly a vote for remain, or even soft Brexit. Labour were offering the fantasy of keeping single market access whilst ending free movement. Something that is wholly unachievable politically. That was how it was able to unify its remainia student vote, with its leave northern voters.
William persists in his fantasies that this election result is the death knell of Brexit. It isn't.
I think it is... And I voted for Brexit.
The irony is that given the court case that made the government seek permission to invoke Article 50, it would surely also take an Act of Parliament to revoke Article 50. How is an Article 50 Revocation Act going to get through Parliament without causing the government to collapse?
If it followed a fresh vote where the alternative Brexit deal had been rejected, I don't see any problem with parliament at all, for the same reasons that A50 got sent in the first place.
A50 got sent because the nation had voted for it in a referendum. How is that the same reasons as politicians declaring a bad deal is worse than no deal?
Really don't get this analysis, both main parties accepted the result of referendum and committed to ending free movement. How do we get from that to no brexit?
Neither party admitted to the economic consequences of that commitment, and neither party has a majority for economic suicide (any more)
The most likely outcome imho is we are forced to sign-up to a worse deal than otherwise would have been the case. Large payments in exchange for market access.
Really can't see how a stop to the A50 process is politically possible from a UK perspective. Labour gained by nullifying Brexit by seeming to agree to it and campaigning on ending austerity. Massive gains by the Lib Dems would have been a different story.
It may be given the election result that the EU stance hardens into a take it or leave it strategy. The idea would be that EU leaders would decide this would be the time for the UK either to be fully in or fully out - no halfway house.
So either the UK would be
a) Hard Brexit - out of EU, out of customs union, out of Single Market - no preferential access whatsoever - no trade deal i.e. WTO rules.
or
b) Full EU membership - join Eurozone (ditch £ sterling), join Schengen, no rebate.
What would the minority UK government do then?
What would the UK electorate want?
In those circumstances there would be a large majority for Hard Brexit. If you can't even muster a majority for remaining in the EU on the old terms you have no chance of getting us to remain in under those terms.
No, the choice we are heading toward is between soft Brexit and no deal or, just as likely, between soft Brexit and Remain.
Remain simply isn't an option. The country would be ungovernable.
It would need a second referendum, to trump the first. Whilst it still remains unlikely, there is now at least a path that might lead towards that outcome. Whether the electorate is prepared to vote for it depends on events and the economy thru 2019. The one lesson we should all learn from recent events is to pause before saying things aren't an option or can't happen?
There would have to be another election before then because if the Government tried to push that through it would collapse. May or who ever succeeds her must know that even long term loyal Tories would on principle abandon the party under those circumstances.
Would it be a bit smug to bother to actively search out and quote my own nugget of wisdom from October 2015 (that sounds a bit bad-tempered now, but whilst under constant attack as a Corbyn supporter rather understandable)? Nah.
Enjoy your hubris Tories. 2015 is as good as it gets for the conservatives in the 21st century - a wafer thin majority, the first in decades, and probably the last, and you'll be spending most of it ripping yourselves apart. So have your fun.
Sympathies to Aaron and thanks for his as always good-natured and level-headed analysis.
As I said on the last thread, I think that from a purely partisan Labour viewpoint, it's absolutely great to have May stumble on for a while with help from Northern Irish extremists (something which makes the stuff about Corbyn hobnobbing with Sinn Fein 40 years ago look distinctly dated).
But in the national interest? Not so much. It really will not last.
'hobnobbing with Sinn Fain'.
Hmmm...I don't think that quite covers it.
Neither does using the word extremist for DUP, whilst vociferously denying it has any associations with Sinn Fein.
I actually agree that Labour's leadership were a bit careless in whom they were nice to as backbenchers 40 years ago. But they've not invited an extreme sectarian party to JOIN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UK, unlike Mrs May. Are you sure it's a good idea?
I find your post absolutely hilarious. The sheer chutzpah and hypocrisy of it. From you, who make excuses for McDonnell/Corbyn's admiration of Sinn Fein, and the former giving active political support to the IRA campaign, and for a couple of leaders who would dance with any enemy of the UK so long as it advanced the cause of international socialism.
It's easily explained: you are a ultra-partisan Labour stooge, who will always seek to attack the Tories for whatever they do, and seek to explain away any similar criticism of Labour. You see no issue in this as you believe you are morally superior.
I know that the UUP were quite keen to learn a lot from the Scots Tories and some of the head office team had meetings with Ruth Davidson but she wasn't that keen to get too close because of the ahem traditional views of some of our members. And we allow free votes on issues of conscience. She will not like being tied at the hip with the DUP who repeatedly abuse the petition of concern over gay marriage and abortion.
Given that youngsters in NI tend to be much more liberal about this stuff, and even the UU are struggling with this stuff, you really only do need a few more cohorts out of school and the Unionist position is in really deep trouble, isn't it? Feel sorry for you.
I actually agree that Labour's leadership were a bit careless in whom they were nice to as backbenchers 40 years ago. But they've not invited an extreme sectarian party to JOIN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UK, unlike Mrs May. Are you sure it's a good idea?
Reading Theresa May's statement, the thought occurs to me that she might be a bit confused on who the DUP are:
As we do, we will continue to work with our friends and allies in the Democratic Unionist party in particular.
Our two parties have enjoyed a strong relationship over many years, and this gives me the confidence to believe that we will be able to work together in the interests of the whole United Kingdom.
It's news to me that the Conservatives and the DUP are 'allies' who 'have enjoyed a strong relationship over many years'.
Is she confusing them with the UUP??
Well, I hate to say it, but that is how it reads.
Well she's in for a surprise when she regains sanity. If, that is.
Would it be a bit smug to bother to actively search out and quote my own nugget of wisdom from October 2015 (that sounds a bit bad-tempered now, but whilst under constant attack as a Corbyn supporter rather understandable)? Nah.
Enjoy your hubris Tories. 2015 is as good as it gets for the conservatives in the 21st century - a wafer thin majority, the first in decades, and probably the last, and you'll be spending most of it ripping yourselves apart. So have your fun.
It may be given the election result that the EU stance hardens into a take it or leave it strategy. The idea would be that EU leaders would decide this would be the time for the UK either to be fully in or fully out - no halfway house.
So either the UK would be
a) Hard Brexit - out of EU, out of customs union, out of Single Market - no preferential access whatsoever - no trade deal i.e. WTO rules.
or
b) Full EU membership - join Eurozone (ditch £ sterling), join Schengen, no rebate.
What would the minority UK government do then?
What would the UK electorate want?
In those circumstances there would be a large majority for Hard Brexit. If you can't even muster a majority for remaining in the EU on the old terms you have no chance of getting us to remain in under those terms.
No, the choice we are heading toward is between soft Brexit and no deal or, just as likely, between soft Brexit and Remain.
Remain simply isn't an option. The country would be ungovernable.
Why? As someone said earlier if it had to go to a second referendum the result would probably be different with the new, young and enthused
Because any party that tried to do that would be destroyed and a UKIP like party would end up holding the balance of power. Don't underestimate the justified sense of betrayal that would drive such a movement.
If you aren't a Tory then resurrecting the split in the Tory party is surely a spin-off benefit?
Indeed. Anything that can accelerate a split should be actively encouraged.
Would it be a bit smug to bother to actively search out and quote my own nugget of wisdom from October 2015 (that sounds a bit bad-tempered now, but whilst under constant attack as a Corbyn supporter rather understandable)? Nah.
Enjoy your hubris Tories. 2015 is as good as it gets for the conservatives in the 21st century - a wafer thin majority, the first in decades, and probably the last, and you'll be spending most of it ripping yourselves apart. So have your fun.
Sympathies to Aaron and thanks for his as always good-natured and level-headed analysis.
As I said on the last thread, I think that from a purely partisan Labour viewpoint, it's absolutely great to have May stumble on for a while with help from Northern Irish extremists (something which makes the stuff about Corbyn hobnobbing with Sinn Fein 40 years ago look distinctly dated).
But in the national interest? Not so much. It really will not last.
'hobnobbing with Sinn Fain'.
Hmmm...I don't think that quite covers it.
Neither does using the word extremist for DUP, whilst vociferously denying it has any associations with Sinn Fein.
I actually agree that Labour's leadership were a bit careless in whom they were nice to as backbenchers 40 years ago. But they've not invited an extreme sectarian party to JOIN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UK, unlike Mrs May. Are you sure it's a good idea?
Done badly this could reignite the troubles. And it will be done badly.
What's your prediction accuracy rate over the last couple of months?
It may be given the election result that the EU stance hardens into a take it or leave it strategy. The idea would be that EU leaders would decide this would be the time for the UK either to be fully in or fully out - no halfway house.
So either the UK would be
a) Hard Brexit - out of EU, out of customs union, out of Single Market - no preferential access whatsoever - no trade deal i.e. WTO rules.
or
b) Full EU membership - join Eurozone (ditch £ sterling), join Schengen, no rebate.
What would the minority UK government do then?
What would the UK electorate want?
In those circumstances there would be a large majority for Hard Brexit. If you can't even muster a majority for remaining in the EU on the old terms you have no chance of getting us to remain in under those terms.
No, the choice we are heading toward is between soft Brexit and no deal or, just as likely, between soft Brexit and Remain.
Remain simply isn't an option. The country would be ungovernable.
Why? As someone said earlier if it had to go to a second referendum the result would probably be different with the new, young and enthused
Because any party that tried to do that would be destroyed and a UKIP like party would end up holding the balance of power. Don't underestimate the justified sense of betrayal that would drive such a movement.
If you aren't a Tory then resurrecting the split in the Tory party is surely a spin-off benefit?
I have no interest in either supporting or destroying the Tory party. But it is basic maths again. Do you really think you couldn't find 5 or 6 dedicated Eurosceptics to bring the party down on a point of principle as fundamental as reneging on the Brexit commitment?
It may be given the election result that the EU stance hardens into a take it or leave it strategy. The idea would be that EU leaders would decide this would be the time for the UK either to be fully in or fully out - no halfway house.
So either the UK would be
a) Hard Brexit - out of EU, out of customs union, out of Single Market - no preferential access whatsoever - no trade deal i.e. WTO rules.
or
b) Full EU membership - join Eurozone (ditch £ sterling), join Schengen, no rebate.
What would the minority UK government do then?
What would the UK electorate want?
In those circumstances there would be a large majority for Hard Brexit. If you can't even muster a majority for remaining in the EU on the old terms you have no chance of getting us to remain in under those terms.
No, the choice we are heading toward is between soft Brexit and no deal or, just as likely, between soft Brexit and Remain.
Remain simply isn't an option. The country would be ungovernable.
It would need a second referendum, to trump the first. Whilst it still remains unlikely, there is now at least a path that might lead towards that outcome. Whether the electorate is prepared to vote for it depends on events and the economy thru 2019. The one lesson we should all learn from recent events is to pause before saying things aren't an option or can't happen?
There would have to be another election before then because if the Government tried to push that through it would collapse. May or who ever succeeds her must know that even long term loyal Tories would on principle abandon the party under those circumstances.
The economy and Immigration are more of a driver than the relationship with the EU. May has just fought an election on Brexit and she lost. I don't think people are realising this changes the game. May wanted a mandate to negotiate the Brexit and the electorate have shrugged their shoulders and said not you.
Ken Clarke is part of the Tories' wafer thin majority with the DUP.
As I posted about 7 a.m. - Ken Clarke for Prime Minister!
Clarke would be a great choice as PM of national unity. Why not? Would be best choice for the country at this critical hour.
Father of the nation. He's earned it, and he's the only viable unifying figure. But, it would need to be predicated on an acceptance that his job is to reverse Brexit and I'm not sure we're politically ready for that yet. More pain needs to be administered first.
But a vote for labour was hardly a vote for remain, or even soft Brexit. Labour were offering the fantasy of keeping single market access whilst ending free movement. Something that is wholly unachievable politically. That was how it was able to unify its remainia student vote, with its leave northern voters.
William persists in his fantasies that this election result is the death knell of Brexit. It isn't.
I think it is... And I voted for Brexit.
The irony is that given the court case that made the government seek permission to invoke Article 50, it would surely also take an Act of Parliament to revoke Article 50. How is an Article 50 Revocation Act going to get through Parliament without causing the government to collapse?
If it followed a fresh vote where the alternative Brexit deal had been rejected, I don't see any problem with parliament at all, for the same reasons that A50 got sent in the first place.
A50 got sent because the nation had voted for it in a referendum. How is that the same reasons as politicians declaring a bad deal is worse than no deal?
It would follow a second referendum.
Will a second referendum get through Parliament?
It hangs on Labour. The default option is that they vote through the final Tory/DUP Brexit plan, despite not approving of it. This they may well do, of course. But there is nevertheless a possibility that, if the climate changes, a second referendum might become an attractive route toward doing what most of them actually want, backed by the authority of a fresh vote. As downthread, temporarily at least we have a cohort of younger voters who now know where their polling station is.
I actually agree that Labour's leadership were a bit careless in whom they were nice to as backbenchers 40 years ago. But they've not invited an extreme sectarian party to JOIN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UK, unlike Mrs May. Are you sure it's a good idea?
Reading Theresa May's statement, the thought occurs to me that she might be a bit confused on who the DUP are:
As we do, we will continue to work with our friends and allies in the Democratic Unionist party in particular.
Our two parties have enjoyed a strong relationship over many years, and this gives me the confidence to believe that we will be able to work together in the interests of the whole United Kingdom.
It's news to me that the Conservatives and the DUP are 'allies' who 'have enjoyed a strong relationship over many years'.
Is she confusing them with the UUP??
Well, I hate to say it, but that is how it reads.
It does indeed. A good spot Richard.
P.S. As a cerebral sensible Tory, I'd be keen to hear your ideas on a way forward. I'm baffled.
I actually agree that Labour's leadership were a bit careless in whom they were nice to as backbenchers 40 years ago. But they've not invited an extreme sectarian party to JOIN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UK, unlike Mrs May. Are you sure it's a good idea?
Reading Theresa May's statement, the thought occurs to me that she might be a bit confused on who the DUP are:
As we do, we will continue to work with our friends and allies in the Democratic Unionist party in particular.
Our two parties have enjoyed a strong relationship over many years, and this gives me the confidence to believe that we will be able to work together in the interests of the whole United Kingdom.
It's news to me that the Conservatives and the DUP are 'allies' who 'have enjoyed a strong relationship over many years'.
If May makes it until Monday I reckon she'll be in for a fair while.
Four by-elections or defections, or one DUP tantrum are all that stand between May and the trapdoor of a confidence vote.
Meanwhile, Anna Soubry and Ken Clarke are already thumbing the recipe books and designing the invitations for all their dinner parties with Cameroons and closet Remoaners over coming weeks.
If she makes it to Monday, she'd need a full personality transplant to have any chance of going anywhere near the distance.
This Government may prove to be more stable than anticipated, Brexit aside.
The DUP are at a high-water mark, will have lots of influence, want Brexit and don't want that to end.
The Tories, Remainer or Leaver, will be utterly terrified of losing office to Corbyn's Labour.
I'd expect discipline to be pretty good.
Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry, and Ken Clarke don't give a flying about discipline if indiscipline furthers their aims. But if May tacks to them, the hard Brexit headbangers will be equally brutal.
This in Major's eurosceptic "bastards" but with more horrendous maths. Plus Major personally gave his MPs an unexpected win in 1992, whereas May personally shat on their doorstep 25 years later... which of those engenders unity and loyalty?
You are just reasserting your original point, without accepting any of mine.
Let me say it again: the Tories will see Corbyn's Labour as a far greater threat to them, and given Brexit is in train, that will greatly aide discipline. They know very well what happened in 1997.
Besides which, a new leader lances the Morgan and Soubry boil, if not Ken Clarke.
Sympathies to Aaron and thanks for his as always good-natured and level-headed analysis.
As I said on the last thread, I think that from a purely partisan Labour viewpoint, it's absolutely great to have May stumble on for a while with help from Northern Irish extremists (something which makes the stuff about Corbyn hobnobbing with Sinn Fein 40 years ago look distinctly dated).
But in the national interest? Not so much. It really will not last.
'hobnobbing with Sinn Fain'.
Hmmm...I don't think that quite covers it.
Neither does using the word extremist for DUP, whilst vociferously denying it has any associations with Sinn Fein.
I actually agree that Labour's leadership were a bit careless in whom they were nice to as backbenchers 40 years ago. But they've not invited an extreme sectarian party to JOIN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UK, unlike Mrs May. Are you sure it's a good idea?
I agree with you re the DUP.
But stop with this 40 years ago nonsense. As you well know your leader has been associating with some pretty unpleasant people other than the IRA, right up until the present day. You may think it of no importance but facts cannot be denied.
The headbangers won't support soft Brexit. The rest won't support hard Brexit.
Ken Clarke is part of the Tories' wafer thin majority with the DUP.
As I posted about 7 a.m. - Ken Clarke for Prime Minister!
Clarke would be a great choice as PM of national unity. Why not? Would be best choice for the country at this critical hour.
Father of the nation. He's earned it, and he's the only viable unifying figure. But, it would need to be predicated on an acceptance that his job is to reverse Brexit and I'm not sure we're politically ready for that yet. More pain needs to be administered first.
But a vote for labour was hardly a vote for remain, or even soft Brexit. Labour were offering the fantasy of keeping single market access whilst ending free movement. Something that is wholly unachievable politically. That was how it was able to unify its remainia student vote, with its leave northern voters.
William persists in his fantasies that this election result is the death knell of Brexit. It isn't.
I think it is... And I voted for Brexit.
Really don't get this analysis, both main parties accepted the result of referendum and committed to ending free movement. How do we get from that to no brexit?
a) May's failure to secure the mandate she requested for her approach to Brexit b) the known antipathy of a majority of the Commons to hard Brexit and probably to Brexit per se. c) the logic of the Labour plan to work up a Brexit plan and put it to Parliament, coupled with the LibDem plan to give the people the final say with the alternative being status quo d) the continuing bafflement of the rest of the world at the mistakes the UK is making e) the now greater likelihood of political and/or economic headwinds throwing HMG off course
Not, yet, probable. But certainly possible.
The logic breaks down at step (c) - the status quo is no longer an option. I can see the EU offering a choice between a bespoke deal and no deal, or between a bespoke deal and full membership including the euro and Schengen, but not between two bespoke deals.
It may be given the election result that the EU stance hardens into a take it or leave it strategy. The idea would be that EU leaders would decide this would be the time for the UK either to be fully in or fully out - no halfway house.
So either the UK would be
a) Hard Brexit - out of EU, out of customs union, out of Single Market - no preferential access whatsoever - no trade deal i.e. WTO rules.
or
b) Full EU membership - join Eurozone (ditch £ sterling), join Schengen, no rebate.
What would the minority UK government do then?
What would the UK electorate want?
In those circumstances there would be a large majority for Hard Brexit. If you can't even muster a majority for remaining in the EU on the old terms you have no chance of getting us to remain in under those terms.
No, the choice we are heading toward is between soft Brexit and no deal or, just as likely, between soft Brexit and Remain.
Remain simply isn't an option. The country would be ungovernable.
Why? As someone said earlier if it had to go to a second referendum the result would probably be different with the new, young and enthused
Because any party that tried to do that would be destroyed and a UKIP like party would end up holding the balance of power. Don't underestimate the justified sense of betrayal that would drive such a movement.
If you aren't a Tory then resurrecting the split in the Tory party is surely a spin-off benefit?
I have no interest in either supporting or destroying the Tory party. But it is basic maths again. Do you really think you couldn't find 5 or 6 dedicated Eurosceptics to bring the party down on a point of principle as fundamental as reneging on the Brexit commitment?
Out of the wreckage there remains a possible path towards no Brexit. Which is my only point. I don't argue it's the most likely route, but simply that something that looked almost impossible yesterday now looks at least possible.
It may be given the election result that the EU stance hardens into a take it or leave it strategy. The idea would be that EU leaders would decide this would be the time for the UK either to be fully in or fully out - no halfway house.
So either the UK would be
a) Hard Brexit - out of EU, out of customs union, out of Single Market - no preferential access whatsoever - no trade deal i.e. WTO rules.
or
b) Full EU membership - join Eurozone (ditch £ sterling), join Schengen, no rebate.
What would the minority UK government do then?
What would the UK electorate want?
In those circumstances there would be a large majority for Hard Brexit. If you can't even muster a majority for remaining in the EU on the old terms you have no chance of getting us to remain in under those terms.
No, the choice we are heading toward is between soft Brexit and no deal or, just as likely, between soft Brexit and Remain.
Remain simply isn't an option. The country would be ungovernable.
It would need a second referendum, to trump the first. Whilst it still remains unlikely, there is now at least a path that might lead towards that outcome. Whether the electorate is prepared to vote for it depends on events and the economy thru 2019. The one lesson we should all learn from recent events is to pause before saying things aren't an option or can't happen?
There would have to be another election before then because if the Government tried to push that through it would collapse. May or who ever succeeds her must know that even long term loyal Tories would on principle abandon the party under those circumstances.
The economy and Immigration are more of a driver than the relationship with the EU. May has just fought an election on Brexit and she lost. I don't think people are realising this changes the game. May wanted a mandate to negotiate the Brexit and the electorate have shrugged their shoulders and said not you.
That is rubbish. She didn't lose. I would be very glad to see her go and be replaced but the idea that the Brexit supporting parties - who got 597 out of the 650 seats - lost, whilst the anti-Brexit parties won, is just laughable.
I guess the excuse will be talking to dup but surely weve usually heard the senior positions by now. Do you think hammond/ johnson have turned her down?
It seems that people opposed to Brexit are taking Labour MPs making up a minority of Parliament, and elected on a manifesto of supporting Brexit, as a clear mandate for stopping BRexit!
Sympathies to Aaron and thanks for his as always good-natured and level-headed analysis.
As I said on the last thread, I think that from a purely partisan Labour viewpoint, it's absolutely great to have May stumble on for a while with help from Northern Irish extremists (something which makes the stuff about Corbyn hobnobbing with Sinn Fein 40 years ago look distinctly dated).
But in the national interest? Not so much. It really will not last.
'hobnobbing with Sinn Fain'.
Hmmm...I don't think that quite covers it.
Neither does using the word extremist for DUP, whilst vociferously denying it has any associations with Sinn Fein.
I actually agree that Labour's leadership were a bit careless in whom they were nice to as backbenchers 40 years ago. But they've not invited an extreme sectarian party to JOIN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UK, unlike Mrs May. Are you sure it's a good idea?
Done badly this could reignite the troubles. And it will be done badly.
The DUP are utterly toxic. May is mad. She is mad.
Sinn Fein won't be able to make agreement on devolved government whilst the DUP have the UK government in their pocket. Keeping the lid on the anger will be hard now.
Suits them. As long as Unionism doesn't wake up and become reasonable in the next decade the demographic shift will grant them a united Ireland within 15. And in the meantime they can concentrate all resources on Dublin. With the DUP as the sole bastion of Unionism they know full well Unionism won't become reasonable to attract any Catholic support.
Although the economics of a united Ireland are tenuous and the political impact, er, dynamic. The Oireachtas report says the unification will just about economically wash its face provided that the UK government continues to make transfer payments for the next 20 years in the amount that it would have done had their been no unification.
As an aside, the fact that SF pulls in c.20% of the vote in Ireland makes anything other minority coalition government difficult to achieve.
I'd be keen to hear your ideas on a way forward. I'm baffled.
I'm baffled too. Clearly Theresa May has to go, or at least set out a timetable for going. Clearly there will have to be some deal with the DUP, the maths makes that unavoidable, but it should be a transactional deal not a cuddling up. Beyond that, search me. I'd be calling on the editor of the Evening Standard for advice.
I guess the excuse will be talking to dup but surely weve usually heard the senior positions by now. Do you think hammond/ johnson have turned her down?
It hangs on Labour. The default option is that they vote through the final Tory/DUP Brexit plan, despite not approving of it. This they may well do, of course. But there is nevertheless a possibility that, if the climate changes, a second referendum might become an attractive route toward doing what most of them actually want, backed by the authority of a fresh vote. As downthread, temporarily at least we have a cohort of younger voters who now know where their polling station is.
There is no vote on the final plan. One of the parties would have to introduce a bill to reverse Article 50. Do you really see anyone out there brave or stupid enough to do so?
I know that the UUP were quite keen to learn a lot from the Scots Tories and some of the head office team had meetings with Ruth Davidson but she wasn't that keen to get too close because of the ahem traditional views of some of our members. And we allow free votes on issues of conscience. She will not like being tied at the hip with the DUP who repeatedly abuse the petition of concern over gay marriage and abortion.
Given that youngsters in NI tend to be much more liberal about this stuff, and even the UU are struggling with this stuff, you really only do need a few more cohorts out of school and the Unionist position is in really deep trouble, isn't it? Feel sorry for you.
Well the only option I see the UUP having is actively promoting liberal Unionism. It will almost certainty fail but we can then at least fail knowing we offered the unionist electorate a genuine opportunity to save the Union for more than a decade. I'm really struggling to see how this victory for Unionism in NI is anything other than a Pyrrhic one. SF will probably take three Belfast seats next time and that will spark panic.
I'd be keen to hear your ideas on a way forward. I'm baffled.
I'm baffled too. Clearly Theresa May has to go, or at least set out a timetable for going. Clearly there will have to be some deal with the DUP, the maths makes that unavoidable, but it should be a transactional deal not a cuddling up. Beyond that, search me. I'd be calling on the editor of the Evening Standard for advice.
Yep. I think a formal coalition would be a very bad idea and I also agree May has to go.
It seems that people opposed to Brexit are taking Labour MPs making up a minority of Parliament, and elected on a manifesto of supporting Brexit, as a clear mandate for stopping BRexit!
I'd be keen to hear your ideas on a way forward. I'm baffled.
I'm baffled too. Clearly Theresa May has to go, or at least set out a timetable for going. Clearly there will have to be some deal with the DUP, the maths makes that unavoidable, but it should be a transactional deal not a cuddling up. Beyond that, search me. I'd be calling on the editor of the Evening Standard for advice.
Tractional deal = cuddling up. You will be tainted either way.
It may be given the election result that the EU stance hardens into a take it or leave it strategy. The idea would be that EU leaders would decide this would be the time for the UK either to be fully in or fully out - no halfway house.
So either the UK would be
a) Hard Brexit - out of EU, out of customs union, out of Single Market - no preferential access whatsoever - no trade deal i.e. WTO rules.
or
b) Full EU membership - join Eurozone (ditch £ sterling), join Schengen, no rebate.
What would the minority UK government do then?
What would the UK electorate want?
In those circumstances there would be a large majority for Hard Brexit. If you can't even muster a majority for remaining in the EU on the old terms you have no chance of getting us to remain in under those terms.
No, the choice we are heading toward is between soft Brexit and no deal or, just as likely, between soft Brexit and Remain.
Remain simply isn't an option. The country would be ungovernable.
Why? As someone said earlier if it had to go to a second referendum the result would probably be different with the new, young and enthused
Because any party that tried to do that would be destroyed and a UKIP like party would end up holding the balance of power. Don't underestimate the justified sense of betrayal that would drive such a movement.
If you aren't a Tory then resurrecting the split in the Tory party is surely a spin-off benefit?
I have no interest in either supporting or destroying the Tory party. But it is basic maths again. Do you really think you couldn't find 5 or 6 dedicated Eurosceptics to bring the party down on a point of principle as fundamental as reneging on the Brexit commitment?
Out of the wreckage there remains a possible path towards no Brexit. Which is my only point. I don't argue it's the most likely route, but simply that something that looked almost impossible yesterday now looks at least possible.
Sympathies to Aaron and thanks for his as always good-natured and level-headed analysis.
As I said on the last thread, I think that from a purely partisan Labour viewpoint, it's absolutely great to have May stumble on for a while with help from Northern Irish extremists (something which makes the stuff about Corbyn hobnobbing with Sinn Fein 40 years ago look distinctly dated).
But in the national interest? Not so much. It really will not last.
'hobnobbing with Sinn Fain'.
Hmmm...I don't think that quite covers it.
Neither does using the word extremist for DUP, whilst vociferously denying it has any associations with Sinn Fein.
I actually agree that Labour's leadership were a bit careless in whom they were nice to as backbenchers 40 years ago. But they've not invited an extreme sectarian party to JOIN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UK, unlike Mrs May. Are you sure it's a good idea?
I find your post absolutely hilarious. The sheer chutzpah and hypocrisy of it. From you, who make excuses for McDonnell/Corbyn's admiration of Sinn Fein, and the former giving active political support to the IRA campaign, and for a couple of leaders who would dance with any enemy of the UK so long as it advanced the cause of international socialism.
It's easily explained: you are a ultra-partisan Labour stooge, who will always seek to attack the Tories for whatever they do, and seek to explain away any similar criticism of Labour. You see no issue in this as you believe you are morally superior.
Away with you.
Oh, and enjoy being out-of-office. AGAIN.
I don't have any problem with a supply and confidence arrangement with the DUP. They'll want money, and support for British troops who served in Northern Ireland, but they won't ask for (or get) bans on homosexuality or breaking the Sabbath.
As leader of the Conservative Party, yes, as PM, no, until her replacement is elected in a proper campaign fully contested.
Given the largest Tory vote in a quarter of a century I'd have more sympathy if she hadn't run a 'presidential' campaign, but she did, so I don't.
I'm still slightly mystified by the 'presidential' nature of the campaign - its not in the character of the young woman I knew - possibly she was ill advised, but she took the advice, so the buck stops with her.
May has one card. Nuclear option. She resigns and Corbyn is called.
How is the distinction made between the PM resigning and the government resigning?
If the PM cannot command the confidence of the house HMQ must send for LOTO
If the DUP are on board is there any doubt that a Tory PM could command the confidence of the house?
If TM resigns there is no Tory PM, constitutionally Jezza has to be given a go at passing a QS or refusing and HMQ probably dissolves in the national interest.
Theresa May needs to put forward a timetable as to when she will go. I think those Labour supporters joyously proclaiming a Labour victory at the next election are being premature at best. But I don't see this as a fatal blow for the Tories. It certainly should be for Theresa May
Sympathies to Aaron and thanks for his as always good-natured and level-headed analysis.
As I said on the last thread, I think that from a purely partisan Labour viewpoint, it's absolutely great to have May stumble on for a while with help from Northern Irish extremists (something which makes the stuff about Corbyn hobnobbing with Sinn Fein 40 years ago look distinctly dated).
But in the national interest? Not so much. It really will not last.
'hobnobbing with Sinn Fain'.
Hmmm...I don't think that quite covers it.
Neither does using the word extremist for DUP, whilst vociferously denying it has any associations with Sinn Fein.
I actually agree that Labour's leadership were a bit careless in whom they were nice to as backbenchers 40 years ago. But they've not invited an extreme sectarian party to JOIN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UK, unlike Mrs May. Are you sure it's a good idea?
I find your post absolutely hilarious. The sheer chutzpah and hypocrisy of it. From you, who make excuses for McDonnell/Corbyn's admiration of Sinn Fein, and the former giving active political support to the IRA campaign, and for a couple of leaders who would dance with any enemy of the UK so long as it advanced the cause of international socialism.
It's easily explained: you are a ultra-partisan Labour stooge, who will always seek to attack the Tories for whatever they do, and seek to explain away any similar criticism of Labour. You see no issue in this as you believe you are morally superior.
Away with you.
Oh, and enjoy being out-of-office. AGAIN.
I don't have any problem with a supply and confidence arrangement with the DUP. They'll want money, and support for British troops who served in Northern Ireland, but they won't ask for (or get) bans on homosexuality or breaking the Sabbath.
Why be balanced about an argument when you can just attack the Tories for being heinous people?
It seems that people opposed to Brexit are taking Labour MPs making up a minority of Parliament, and elected on a manifesto of supporting Brexit, as a clear mandate for stopping BRexit!
Plus Kate adds one (I'm sure there are others) to the govt's plans on the subject.
Sympathies to Aaron and thanks for his as always good-natured and level-headed analysis.
As I said on the last thread, I think that from a purely partisan Labour viewpoint, it's absolutely great to have May stumble on for a while with help from Northern Irish extremists (something which makes the stuff about Corbyn hobnobbing with Sinn Fein 40 years ago look distinctly dated).
But in the national interest? Not so much. It really will not last.
'hobnobbing with Sinn Fain'.
Hmmm...I don't think that quite covers it.
Neither does using the word extremist for DUP, whilst vociferously denying it has any associations with Sinn Fein.
I actually agree that Labour's leadership were a bit careless in whom they were nice to as backbenchers 40 years ago. But they've not invited an extreme sectarian party to JOIN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UK, unlike Mrs May. Are you sure it's a good idea?
I find your post absolutely hilarious. The sheer chutzpah and hypocrisy of it. From you, who make excuses for McDonnell/Corbyn's admiration of Sinn Fein, and the former giving active political support to the IRA campaign, and for a couple of leaders who would dance with any enemy of the UK so long as it advanced the cause of international socialism.
It's easily explained: you are a ultra-partisan Labour stooge, who will always seek to attack the Tories for whatever they do, and seek to explain away any similar criticism of Labour. You see no issue in this as you believe you are morally superior.
I know that the UUP were quite keen to learn a lot from the Scots Tories and some of the head office team had meetings with Ruth Davidson but she wasn't that keen to get too close because of the ahem traditional views of some of our members. And we allow free votes on issues of conscience. She will not like being tied at the hip with the DUP who repeatedly abuse the petition of concern over gay marriage and abortion.
Given that youngsters in NI tend to be much more liberal about this stuff, and even the UU are struggling with this stuff, you really only do need a few more cohorts out of school and the Unionist position is in really deep trouble, isn't it? Feel sorry for you.
Well the only option I see the UUP having is actively promoting liberal Unionism. It will almost certainty fail but we can then at least fail knowing we offered the unionist electorate a genuine opportunity to save the Union for more than a decade. I'm really struggling to see how this victory for Unionism in NI is anything other than a Pyrrhic one. SF will probably take three Belfast seats next time and that will spark panic.
You sound like a man counting down the clock on his dying country - you've been writing some very moving posts.
Are there Unionists putting up half-baked proposals to encourage Protestants to have more babies, or to encourage more migration from the mainland?
seems unfair that May is getting slammed when she got more votes than Blair in 97
The Boundary Commission proposals, if they had been implemented before the GE would have given the Tories a majority. Most votes in total do not give a majority. Will the proposals happen now?
May has one card. Nuclear option. She resigns and Corbyn is called.
How is the distinction made between the PM resigning and the government resigning?
If the PM cannot command the confidence of the house HMQ must send for LOTO
If the DUP are on board is there any doubt that a Tory PM could command the confidence of the house?
If TM resigns there is no Tory PM, constitutionally Jezza has to be given a go at passing a QS or refusing and HMQ probably dissolves in the national interest.
Did Jeremy Corbyn become PM when David Cameron resigned? Did David Cameron become PM when Tony Blair resigned? Did Tony Blair become PM when John Major resigned?
seems unfair that May is getting slammed when she got more votes than Blair in 97
The Boundary Commission proposals, if they had been implemented before the GE would have given the Tories a majority. Most votes in total do not give a majority. Will the proposals happen now?
Probably not, given that some Tories may vote against it as they would lose their seat. Maybe if it was restarted but keeping the numbers at 650.
She should be giving a timetable for a leadership election. She lost an election
Most votes, most seats, is PM. Strange idea of losing an election you have.
I voted Tory yesterday because I am opposed to Corbyn. If I think this, then many others will be having the same conclusions. May has blown it, how on earth can she negotiate on behalf of the UK, she called an election and made Brexit the issue and she failed to get a majority. This country will be a laughing stock. She is a busted flush.
May has one card. Nuclear option. She resigns and Corbyn is called.
She would be asked for her recommendation of who else could command the confidence of the House of Commons.
Corbyn could not.
It's basic constitutional theory. A government is formed if it is able to command a majority in the Commons. As of today, that has to be the Conservatives, with some kind of backing by the DUP.
Tractional deal = cuddling up. You will be tainted either way.
Quite possibly, although nothing could conceivably be worse than being tainted with a leader who invited convicted terrorists into the workplace of their fellow-terrorists' victims, within days of the murders and maimings, nor a Shadow Chancellor who openly celebrated the 'achievements of those murderers, and neither of these seems to have caused much electoral damage.
So, much against my expectation, there looks to have been some pretty obvious and seroius SNP-to-Con Swing.
I'm just spitballing an idea here, but what if the Swing wasn't due to IndyRef but due to Brexit instead? With the Tories being the absolute only Brexit party in Scotland.
May has one card. Nuclear option. She resigns and Corbyn is called.
How is the distinction made between the PM resigning and the government resigning?
If the PM cannot command the confidence of the house HMQ must send for LOTO
If the DUP are on board is there any doubt that a Tory PM could command the confidence of the house?
If TM resigns there is no Tory PM, constitutionally Jezza has to be given a go at passing a QS or refusing and HMQ probably dissolves in the national interest.
Did Jeremy Corbyn become PM when David Cameron resigned? Did David Cameron become PM when Tony Blair resigned? Did Tony Blair become PM when John Major resigned?
Yeah, people are confusing the PM resigning with the government resigning.
As leader of the Conservative Party, yes, as PM, no, until her replacement is elected in a proper campaign fully contested.
Given the largest Tory vote in a quarter of a century I'd have more sympathy if she hadn't run a 'presidential' campaign, but she did, so I don't.
I'm still slightly mystified by the 'presidential' nature of the campaign - its not in the character of the young woman I knew - possibly she was ill advised, but she took the advice, so the buck stops with her.
It made no sense to run a Presidential campaign while chickening out of the Presidential debates that have become a feature of our elections.
Tractional deal = cuddling up. You will be tainted either way.
Quite possibly, although nothing could conceivably be worse than being tainted with a leader who invited convicted terrorists into the workplace of their fellow-terrorists' victims, within days of the murders and maimings, nor a Shadow Chancellor who openly celebrated the 'achievements of those murderers, and neither of these seems to have caused much electoral damage.
Quit it with that ad hom stuff, it didn't work, it just makes you look silly.
It hangs on Labour. The default option is that they vote through the final Tory/DUP Brexit plan, despite not approving of it. This they may well do, of course. But there is nevertheless a possibility that, if the climate changes, a second referendum might become an attractive route toward doing what most of them actually want, backed by the authority of a fresh vote. As downthread, temporarily at least we have a cohort of younger voters who now know where their polling station is.
There is no vote on the final plan. One of the parties would have to introduce a bill to reverse Article 50. Do you really see anyone out there brave or stupid enough to do so?
A Farage-led UKIP would poll 30% almost overnight if anyone thought of trying it.
Brexit is happening, and for all the comment about it on here a 'hard Brexit' is now much more likely to be the outcome than a 'soft Brexit'.
Comments
She should be giving a timetable for a leadership election. She lost an election that she called and the public did not support her. I always felt she was completely devoid of the qualities that leadership requires. She has no personality and no ideas for making the country a better place to live. Her adoption of the referendum result as a mandate has now been superseded by yesterdays General Election. She wanted an election on Brexit, lost it and now has the temerity and brass neck to stay on as PM. I snort with derision that a leader lacking a mandate in Theresa May will be supported by the DUP which have a leader who also refuses to go despite her involvement in one of the most incompetent policies I have ever scene.
Have we reached peak SNP? Don’t count on it
Lesley Riddoch
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/09/snp-scottish-national-party-nicola-sturgeon?CMP=twt_gu
Really can't see how a stop to the A50 process is politically possible from a UK perspective.
Labour gained by nullifying Brexit by seeming to agree to it and campaigning on ending austerity. Massive gains by the Lib Dems would have been a different story.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/09/kensington-count-suspended-tellers-left-exhausted/
It's easily explained: you are a ultra-partisan Labour stooge, who will always seek to attack the Tories for whatever they do, and seek to explain away any similar criticism of Labour. You see no issue in this as you believe you are morally superior.
Away with you.
Oh, and enjoy being out-of-office. AGAIN.
P.S. As a cerebral sensible Tory, I'd be keen to hear your ideas on a way forward. I'm baffled.
Time to form the Patrick Party.
Let me say it again: the Tories will see Corbyn's Labour as a far greater threat to them, and given Brexit is in train, that will greatly aide discipline. They know very well what happened in 1997.
Besides which, a new leader lances the Morgan and Soubry boil, if not Ken Clarke.
Well done. Fastest fingers first.
But stop with this 40 years ago nonsense. As you well know your leader has been associating with some pretty unpleasant people other than the IRA, right up until the present day. You may think it of no importance but facts cannot be denied.
As an aside, the fact that SF pulls in c.20% of the vote in Ireland makes anything other minority coalition government difficult to achieve.
That's fine, then.
Corbyn could not.
If only I hadn't slap £85 down on Con Maj.
Given the largest Tory vote in a quarter of a century I'd have more sympathy if she hadn't run a 'presidential' campaign, but she did, so I don't.
I'm still slightly mystified by the 'presidential' nature of the campaign - its not in the character of the young woman I knew - possibly she was ill advised, but she took the advice, so the buck stops with her.
Smells like it's all over already.
Go to bed.
Are there Unionists putting up half-baked proposals to encourage Protestants to have more babies, or to encourage more migration from the mainland?
Did David Cameron become PM when Tony Blair resigned?
Did Tony Blair become PM when John Major resigned?
Labour lack the numbers to form a government.
I'm just spitballing an idea here, but what if the Swing wasn't due to IndyRef but due to Brexit instead? With the Tories being the absolute only Brexit party in Scotland.
Brexit is happening, and for all the comment about it on here a 'hard Brexit' is now much more likely to be the outcome than a 'soft Brexit'.