A big problem for the Conservatives is that both the left wing and the right wing think that the other faction is making them unpopular, and they don't realise that they each need the other.
Thing is I don't think that is why the Tories have a problem. From the outside looking in prior to the election the party appeared, to me at least, to be more unified than I have ever known it. There were a couple of Eurofanatic headbangers like Clarke and Soubry but they were generally behaving. This problem that has appeared with the Tory party all stems from one single issue - Theresa May. She is not the person to lead either the party or the country and has set the Tory party back decades in just a few short weeks.
If they are ruthless and get rid of May then I do believe there is plenty of common ground between the various wings of the party to allow them to put together an effective programme and start to rebuild public confidence. But May has to go.
#saveMay
It is quite funny that the next few years might be dominated by each party doing everything they can to make sure the opposing leader stays in place.
indeed. Post of the day, if not the week.
Post of the week/year/millennium is already bagged by Mr Herdson......
That, and the reaction to it, was one of the greatest PB moments of all time.
For drama and tension it was beaten by BJO's heart-rending posts from a Tunisian hotel being attacked by terrorists.
But for political shock value (that you could have made a lot of money on had you followed it!) nothing could beat it!
Between that, @RochdalePioneers' precise predictions and the YouGov model we had all the clues we needed. I just didn't follow the right ones.
Even the socially conservative DUP have a female leader! When will the so-called "progressives" in Labour elect a woman as their leader?
Were you saying that when Diane stood in 2010? Labour members have no hang ups about electing a woman as leader - it just happens that the women to step forward have been Liz Kendall, Yvette Cooper, and Angela Eagle, and they all ran crap election campaigns.
Now that might sound similar to previous small majorities - ie after 2015 GE, Con had majority of 16.
But the difference is that with that majority of 16 they also then had the DUP to give an additional buffer - so in practice it was much more comfortable.
This time it's 13 and that's it - no other potential support anywhere (other than from Hoey, Field etc on Brexit - but that's only on Brexit).
Now to my mind 13 is just about manageable - but if it starts slipping through by-election losses it could quite quickly become untenable.
Three by-election losses would reduce it to 7 - that feels like the absolute minimum under which they could carry on with any sense of stability - by that I just mean without feeling that the Govt could fall at any moment.
So what does that mean? Reckon to get through the next two years, complete Brexit and then another GE under a new leader? Or if new leader comes in soon would they go for an immediate GE?
I can't imagine this lasting the full five years.
I did the same calculation and wondered the exact same thing today. Unless Brexit breaks down irrevocably and forces an immediate GE, the best thing would be to make May carry the can and get Brexit through by 2019, then install a new leader who knows how to campaign for a honeymoon GE thereafter. Labour won't refuse an election at any point in this Parliament, regardless of the polls!
Every day May remains in power it taints the Tory brand further. It might be beyond redemption in 2019, at least in the short term
Off the shelf Norway EEA. Put it for a transition period of 5 years from 2019 so it expires in middle of next parliament.
Brexit bill. Pay for all committed projects and other things we are actually on the hook for, that's it. EU will receive funding if we are under Norway model anyway. Maybe chuck in an extra 10 billion if we can have a fig leaf on free movement.
Take this agreement - put it to the parliament. Watch as headbangers vote no but bulk of Lab/LD/SNP MPs vote yes. Be clear and open that this is a soft brexit transition, so that the opposition parties can't get away with voting it down.
We Brexit in 2019 and join EEA. UKIP lose all MEPs and any remaining political influence. Go to the country in 2021/22 and all parties can present their vision for the future, making it permanent, withdrawing entirely etc. UKIP fail, and tories and labour will likely extend or make indefinite the transitional arrangement.
Voila, Brexit sorted.
It's not certain the EU or the EFTA members will agree. The EEA was negotiated in a very different and more benign environment than Brexit. We won't know unless we try it. They certainly will not agree to the EEA as a transition or time-limited arrangement out of the EU. It would have to a be a permanent arrangement or one that leads to rejoining the EU at a later date. That doesn't stop a future government revisiting the arrangement later. The EU/EFTA EEA members would probably be aware of that risk, so it may be an issue.
The other problem is that the EEA won't actually work for us, except as a short term measure. We really aren't Norway.
However it is a sensible way out of the mess that faces us.
The EEA requires freedom to move to work, but not to live, so that could be seen as a restriction on FoM.
The Tories have simply one thing to do in government this time around - make sure that Corbyn isn't the next PM. Brexit is important, solvency is important, defence is important, law and order is important - however frankly I don't care what they do with those things - the demolition of the country by Corbyn is something I never wish to see, all other matters are secondary.
Any Tory MP that makes even the slightest peep against Mrs May needs to be consigned to the tower. Of course she won't actually be making the decisions - it'll be the cabinet.
I know it's fashionable to vote for dimwits, but the UK is not in a position to indulge itself with the dangerous variety.
(repost as I posted in error on a stale thread)
Agreed that that's priority No. 1.
In a purely theoretical sense though, I wonder what the electoral effect of a Corbyn-led, 6 party rainbow minority coalition tackling Brexit would be? I'd hope it would expose his extremism and incompetence to disastrous effect, but on the other hand it might just normalise him and lead to Labour cannibalizing its former partners at the next election...
In normal times I'd almost be happy for him to demonstrate his woefulness. A prosperous country in normal times can afford a ten to twenty percent hit. We can't, courtesy of G Brown esq. If the UK goes bust the ramifications are boggling - all savings are screwed, all pension promises are screwed, welfare will be decimated, the NHS too, and the list goes on. The IMF can't afford to rescue us in the way Greece was bailed out.
The expensive indulgence of letting Corbyn show us what he's got isn't an option.
Now that might sound similar to previous small majorities - ie after 2015 GE, Con had majority of 16.
But the difference is that with that majority of 16 they also then had the DUP to give an additional buffer - so in practice it was much more comfortable.
This time it's 13 and that's it - no other potential support anywhere (other than from Hoey, Field etc on Brexit - but that's only on Brexit).
Now to my mind 13 is just about manageable - but if it starts slipping through by-election losses it could quite quickly become untenable.
Three by-election losses would reduce it to 7 - that feels like the absolute minimum under which they could carry on with any sense of stability - by that I just mean without feeling that the Govt could fall at any moment.
So what does that mean? Reckon to get through the next two years, complete Brexit and then another GE under a new leader? Or if new leader comes in soon would they go for an immediate GE?
I can't imagine this lasting the full five years.
I did the same calculation and wondered the exact same thing today. Unless Brexit breaks down irrevocably and forces an immediate GE, the best thing would be to make May carry the can and get Brexit through by 2019, then install a new leader who knows how to campaign for a honeymoon GE thereafter. Labour won't refuse an election at any point in this Parliament, regardless of the polls!
Every day May remains in power it taints the Tory brand further. It might be beyond redemption in 2019, at least in the short term
It will be interesting if there has been polling on who the Country thinks should be PM
I think we're due a Shad Cab reshuffle tomorrow. I hope it will show a reunification of the PLP.
My fantasy shadow cabinet - allowing Chicken Coupers to get back into the shadow cabinet but not at the expense of the both loyal and good.
Shadow Chancellor - John McDonnell Shadow Home Sec - Stella Creasy Shadow Foreign Sec - Emily Thornberry Shadow Defence - Clive Lewis Shadow Justice - Cat Smith Shadow Education - Angela Rayner Shadow Equalities - Angela Eagle Shadow Brexit - Keir Starmer Shadow International Trade - Chuka Umunna Shadow Business - Yvette Cooper Shadow Health - Debbie Abrahams Shadow Work and Pensions - Rachel Reeves Shadow Transport - Caroline Flint Shadow Communities - Tony Lloyd Shadow Environment - Sue Hayman Shadow International Development - Kate Osamor Shadow Culture, Media and Sport - Ben Bradshaw Shadow Scotland - Ian Murray Shadow Wales - Nia Griffith Shadow Northern Ireland - Peter Hain* Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury - Liz Kendall. Shadow Leader of the House - Jess Phillips
* I know he's in the House of Lords but Northern Ireland's going to be an important issue in the next Parliament and Hain already knows the job.
You'll finish up with about 8/22 there.
Long-Bailey and Burgon will feature somewhere. I don't believe that Kendall, Reeves, Flint, or Bradshaw will have anything to do with Corbyn.
Yes, I did say fantasy, it would assume that everyone would be willing to a) serve under Corbyn and b) do any job required.
I see Chris Leslie has attacked Corbyn again today as well. The idea that all is well in the Labour Party is simply fantasy.
Definitely. It's still two parties that want to travel in opposite directions, tied together with a rope.
I think members should start thinking about deselections of those like Chris Leslie who have done nothing but try to undermine the party (but probably not many others - certainly not the majority of the chicken coup-ers) who don't represent the local parties. Members, after all, are the people whose free time and money goes into getting them elected.
I get the argument that their mandate is to the voters, not the party members, but they can go to the voters without the local Labour Party's blessing as independents as Danczuk did if they want. We'll be able to see for sure how far it is their personal charisma that counts rather than the collective effort of the whole party.
If history is a guide then the initial favourite always flatters to deceive. Accordingly I shall hold back until endorsed by the Auchentennach Bugle ....
I think we're due a Shad Cab reshuffle tomorrow. I hope it will show a reunification of the PLP.
My fantasy shadow cabinet - allowing Chicken Coupers to get back into the shadow cabinet but not at the expense of the both loyal and good.
Shadow Chancellor - John McDonnell Shadow Home Sec - Stella Creasy Shadow Foreign Sec - Emily Thornberry Shadow Defence - Clive Lewis Shadow Justice - Cat Smith Shadow Education - Angela Rayner Shadow Equalities - Angela Eagle Shadow Brexit - Keir Starmer Shadow International Trade - Chuka Umunna Shadow Business - Yvette Cooper Shadow Health - Debbie Abrahams Shadow Work and Pensions - Rachel Reeves Shadow Transport - Caroline Flint Shadow Communities - Tony Lloyd Shadow Environment - Sue Hayman Shadow International Development - Kate Osamor Shadow Culture, Media and Sport - Ben Bradshaw Shadow Scotland - Ian Murray Shadow Wales - Nia Griffith Shadow Northern Ireland - Peter Hain* Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury - Liz Kendall. Shadow Leader of the House - Jess Phillips
* I know he's in the House of Lords but Northern Ireland's going to be an important issue in the next Parliament and Hain already knows the job.
You'll finish up with about 8/22 there.
Long-Bailey and Burgon will feature somewhere. I don't believe that Kendall, Reeves, Flint, or Bradshaw will have anything to do with Corbyn.
Or Phillips. And nor should they. Why appoint people to a position if you know they'll be thinking about quitting to try and destabilise your leadership at critical points in our political history, rather than actually doing the job...
I see Chris Leslie has attacked Corbyn again today as well. The idea that all is well in the Labour Party is simply fantasy.
We've just had another election where Labour is still out of power, for x years, where x could be 5 until the next election. That's another tranche of their existing MPs heading towards the end of their careers.
The "one more heave" brigade will say they didn't offer enough sweeties, is all. I still reckon half the Parliamentary party will be deeply worried that will be enough to push their credibility over the edge. And there is no-one left to hoover up. If they want power, they have to persuade Tories of the delights of red-in-tooth-and-claw socialism. Good luck with that.
The alternative, to attract Tories, is that there has to be a degree of realism on what can be offered in the next Manifesto. But you that would mean taking away some of the sweeties from those who just came out to vote of them. Tricky balancing act....
The Tories have simply one thing to do in government this time around - make sure that Corbyn isn't the next PM. Brexit is important, solvency is important, defence is important, law and order is important - however frankly I don't care what they do with those things - the demolition of the country by Corbyn is something I never wish to see, all other matters are secondary.
Any Tory MP that makes even the slightest peep against Mrs May needs to be consigned to the tower. Of course she won't actually be making the decisions - it'll be the cabinet.
I know it's fashionable to vote for dimwits, but the UK is not in a position to indulge itself with the dangerous variety.
(repost as I posted in error on a stale thread)
Agreed that that's priority No. 1.
In a purely theoretical sense though, I wonder what the electoral effect of a Corbyn-led, 6 party rainbow minority coalition tackling Brexit would be? I'd hope it would expose his extremism and incompetence to disastrous effect, but on the other hand it might just normalise him and lead to Labour cannibalizing its former partners at the next election...
In normal times I'd almost be happy for him to demonstrate his woefulness. A prosperous country in normal times can afford a ten to twenty percent hit. We can't, courtesy of G Brown esq. If the UK goes bust the ramifications are boggling - all savings are screwed, all pension promises are screwed, welfare will be decimated, the NHS too, and the list goes on. The IMF can't afford to rescue us in the way Greece was bailed out.
The expensive indulgence of letting Corbyn show us what he's got isn't an option.
Do you think the Lib Dems would be in any form of coalition with Corbyn and anyway without the DUP he does not have the numbers
Post of the week/year/millennium is already bagged by Mr Herdson......
That, and the reaction to it, was one of the greatest PB moments of all time.
For drama and tension it was beaten by BJO's heart-rending posts from a Tunisian hotel being attacked by terrorists.
But for political shock value (that you could have made a lot of money on had you followed it!) nothing could beat it!
Between that, @RochdalePioneers' precise predictions and the YouGov model we had all the clues we needed. I just didn't follow the right ones.
Actually although DH was very close to the correct result, it would probably still have been a mistake to read too much into - his instinct was spot on but the data was weakened by how small the sample was. I recall MarqueeMark had a surprisingly good doorstep session for the Tories at the same time - which also turned out to be accurate, though for his seat! And indeed, David had a better session later, which turned out to be the more misleading one.
Both David and RochdalePioneers were obviously very well-informed about their parties' operations in key seats.
But the YouGov model should have been the focus of a really serious bout of analysis. It was obvious to most posters that its basic principles seemed correct. If people didn't believe the results, and yet the idea of the model seemed solid, it should have provoked extremely intense curiosity, particularly given the betting opportunities if it was even half-right.
(If it is the future, it might be time to learn some Python or R, or at least serious Excel wizardry...)
Now that might sound similar to previous small majorities - ie after 2015 GE, Con had majority of 16.
But the difference is that with that majority of 16 they also then had the DUP to give an additional buffer - so in practice it was much more comfortable.
This time it's 13 and that's it - no other potential support anywhere (other than from Hoey, Field etc on Brexit - but that's only on Brexit).
Now to my mind 13 is just about manageable - but if it starts slipping through by-election losses it could quite quickly become untenable.
Three by-election losses would reduce it to 7 - that feels like the absolute minimum under which they could carry on with any sense of stability - by that I just mean without feeling that the Govt could fall at any moment.
So what does that mean? Reckon to get through the next two years, complete Brexit and then another GE under a new leader? Or if new leader comes in soon would they go for an immediate GE?
I can't imagine this lasting the full five years.
I did the same calculation and wondered the exact same thing today. Unless Brexit breaks down irrevocably and forces an immediate GE, the best thing would be to make May carry the can and get Brexit through by 2019, then install a new leader who knows how to campaign for a honeymoon GE thereafter. Labour won't refuse an election at any point in this Parliament, regardless of the polls!
Yes, makes sense.
However, if a new leader comes in quickly I suspect they'll go for an immediate GE.
The thing is that momentum is key. Clinging on with a tiny majority makes you look weak and gives the sense that things are slipping away.
So if, eg, Boris became leader this Autumn I think he would feel he had to go for the immediate GE.
As a Con supporter, my preference would be for May to do Brexit, then a new leader in 2019 and a GE then.
Now that might sound similar to previous small majorities - ie after 2015 GE, Con had majority of 16.
But the difference is that with that majority of 16 they also then had the DUP to give an additional buffer - so in practice it was much more comfortable.
This time it's 13 and that's it - no other potential support anywhere (other than from Hoey, Field etc on Brexit - but that's only on Brexit).
Now to my mind 13 is just about manageable - but if it starts slipping through by-election losses it could quite quickly become untenable.
Three by-election losses would reduce it to 7 - that feels like the absolute minimum under which they could carry on with any sense of stability - by that I just mean without feeling that the Govt could fall at any moment.
So what does that mean? Reckon to get through the next two years, complete Brexit and then another GE under a new leader? Or if new leader comes in soon would they go for an immediate GE?
I can't imagine this lasting the full five years.
I did the same calculation and wondered the exact same thing today. Unless Brexit breaks down irrevocably and forces an immediate GE, the best thing would be to make May carry the can and get Brexit through by 2019, then install a new leader who knows how to campaign for a honeymoon GE thereafter. Labour won't refuse an election at any point in this Parliament, regardless of the polls!
Every day May remains in power it taints the Tory brand further. It might be beyond redemption in 2019, at least in the short term
It will be interesting if there has been polling on who the Country thinks should be PM
Yes. I feel sympathy for her. But she will be destroyed by the media daily if she hangs around. Major and Brown all over again. Need a change.
Now that might sound similar to previous small majorities - ie after 2015 GE, Con had majority of 16.
But the difference is that with that majority of 16 they also then had the DUP to give an additional buffer - so in practice it was much more comfortable.
This time it's 13 and that's it - no other potential support anywhere (other than from Hoey, Field etc on Brexit - but that's only on Brexit).
Now to my mind 13 is just about manageable - but if it starts slipping through by-election losses it could quite quickly become untenable.
Three by-election losses would reduce it to 7 - that feels like the absolute minimum under which they could carry on with any sense of stability - by that I just mean without feeling that the Govt could fall at any moment.
So what does that mean? Reckon to get through the next two years, complete Brexit and then another GE under a new leader? Or if new leader comes in soon would they go for an immediate GE?
I can't imagine this lasting the full five years.
I did the same calculation and wondered the exact same thing today. Unless Brexit breaks down irrevocably and forces an immediate GE, the best thing would be to make May carry the can and get Brexit through by 2019, then install a new leader who knows how to campaign for a honeymoon GE thereafter. Labour won't refuse an election at any point in this Parliament, regardless of the polls!
Every day May remains in power it taints the Tory brand further. It might be beyond redemption in 2019, at least in the short term
I disagree, Brown and May showed that new leaders get honeymoons - as May's experience up to two days ago shows. Smartest thing would be to continue, take all the flack personally, and give way to somebody untainted who will then call an election.
Post of the week/year/millennium is already bagged by Mr Herdson......
That, and the reaction to it, was one of the greatest PB moments of all time.
For drama and tension it was beaten by BJO's heart-rending posts from a Tunisian hotel being attacked by terrorists.
But for political shock value (that you could have made a lot of money on had you followed it!) nothing could beat it!
Between that, @RochdalePioneers' precise predictions and the YouGov model we had all the clues we needed. I just didn't follow the right ones.
Actually although DH was very close to the correct result, it would probably still have been a mistake to read too much into - his instinct was spot on but the data was weakened by how small the sample was. I recall MarqueeMark had a surprisingly good doorstep session for the Tories at the same time - which also turned out to be accurate, though for his seat! And indeed, David had a better session later, which turned out to be the more misleading one.
Both David and RochdalePioneers were obviously very well-informed about their parties' operations in key seats.
But the YouGov model should have been the focus of a really serious bout of analysis. It was obvious to most posters that its basic principles seemed correct. If people didn't believe the results, and yet the idea of the model seemed solid, it should have provoked extremely intense curiosity, particularly given the betting opportunities if it was even half-right.
(If it is the future, it might be time to learn some Python or R, or at least serious Excel wizardry...)
The difficulty we had with the YouGov modelling is that it relied on people turning out as they said they would rather than as they have previously done. If we had got over that hangup, the modelling was good as far as we concerned. I was very leary of the ICM approach of discounting the Labour share because Labour always underperforms. You should never second guess your data.
Post of the week/year/millennium is already bagged by Mr Herdson......
That, and the reaction to it, was one of the greatest PB moments of all time.
For drama and tension it was beaten by BJO's heart-rending posts from a Tunisian hotel being attacked by terrorists.
But for political shock value (that you could have made a lot of money on had you followed it!) nothing could beat it!
Between that, @RochdalePioneers' precise predictions and the YouGov model we had all the clues we needed. I just didn't follow the right ones.
Actually although DH was very close to the correct result, it would probably still have been a mistake to read too much into - his instinct was spot on but the data was weakened by how small the sample was. I recall MarqueeMark had a surprisingly good doorstep session for the Tories at the same time - which also turned out to be accurate, though for his seat! And indeed, David had a better session later, which turned out to be the more misleading one.
Both David and RochdalePioneers were obviously very well-informed about their parties' operations in key seats.
But the YouGov model should have been the focus of a really serious bout of analysis. It was obvious to most posters that its basic principles seemed correct. If people didn't believe the results, and yet the idea of the model seemed solid, it should have provoked extremely intense curiosity, particularly given the betting opportunities if it was even half-right.
(If it is the future, it might be time to learn some Python or R, or at least serious Excel wizardry...)
I can use pivot tables, does that count as serious excel wizardry?
Now that might sound similar to previous small majorities - ie after 2015 GE, Con had majority of 16.
But the difference is that with that majority of 16 they also then had the DUP to give an additional buffer - so in practice it was much more comfortable.
This time it's 13 and that's it - no other potential support anywhere (other than from Hoey, Field etc on Brexit - but that's only on Brexit).
Now to my mind 13 is just about manageable - but if it starts slipping through by-election losses it could quite quickly become untenable.
Three by-election losses would reduce it to 7 - that feels like the absolute minimum under which they could carry on with any sense of stability - by that I just mean without feeling that the Govt could fall at any moment.
So what does that mean? Reckon to get through the next two years, complete Brexit and then another GE under a new leader? Or if new leader comes in soon would they go for an immediate GE?
I can't imagine this lasting the full five years.
I did the same calculation and wondered the exact same thing today. Unless Brexit breaks down irrevocably and forces an immediate GE, the best thing would be to make May carry the can and get Brexit through by 2019, then install a new leader who knows how to campaign for a honeymoon GE thereafter. Labour won't refuse an election at any point in this Parliament, regardless of the polls!
Every day May remains in power it taints the Tory brand further. It might be beyond redemption in 2019, at least in the short term
It will be interesting if there has been polling on who the Country thinks should be PM
Yes. I feel sympathy for her. But she will be destroyed by the media daily if she hangs around. Major and Brown all over again. Need a change.
A change will come either before the October conference or after March 2019
I think we're due a Shad Cab reshuffle tomorrow. I hope it will show a reunification of the PLP.
My fantasy shadow cabinet - allowing Chicken Coupers to get back into the shadow cabinet but not at the expense of the both loyal and good.
Shadow Chancellor - John McDonnell Shadow Home Sec - Stella Creasy Shadow Foreign Sec - Emily Thornberry Shadow Defence - Clive Lewis Shadow Justice - Cat Smith Shadow Education - Angela Rayner Shadow Equalities - Angela Eagle Shadow Brexit - Keir Starmer Shadow International Trade - Chuka Umunna Shadow Business - Yvette Cooper Shadow Health - Debbie Abrahams Shadow Work and Pensions - Rachel Reeves Shadow Transport - Caroline Flint Shadow Communities - Tony Lloyd Shadow Environment - Sue Hayman Shadow International Development - Kate Osamor Shadow Culture, Media and Sport - Ben Bradshaw Shadow Scotland - Ian Murray Shadow Wales - Nia Griffith Shadow Northern Ireland - Peter Hain* Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury - Liz Kendall. Shadow Leader of the House - Jess Phillips
* I know he's in the House of Lords but Northern Ireland's going to be an important issue in the next Parliament and Hain already knows the job.
You'll finish up with about 8/22 there.
Long-Bailey and Burgon will feature somewhere. I don't believe that Kendall, Reeves, Flint, or Bradshaw will have anything to do with Corbyn.
Or Phillips. And nor should they. Why appoint people to a position if you know they'll be thinking about quitting to try and destabilise your leadership at critical points in our political history, rather than actually doing the job...
I see Chris Leslie has attacked Corbyn again today as well. The idea that all is well in the Labour Party is simply fantasy.
I might be on the wrong side of the party but what the hell has Chris Leslie ever done? He was in charge of the photocopiers at Bradford Labour Party office, got lucky to be candidate for Shipley when the Blair landslide happened, parachuted into Nottingham East after losing Shipley and became Shadow Chancellor only because Balls lost his seat and Harman didn't want to shuffle too much before the new leader formed their own team. He's spent 20 years in politics and never risen above nonentity.
Off the shelf Norway EEA. Put it for a transition period of 5 years from 2019 so it expires in middle of next parliament.
Brexit bill. Pay for all committed projects and other things we are actually on the hook for, that's it. EU will receive funding if we are under Norway model anyway. Maybe chuck in an extra 10 billion if we can have a fig leaf on free movement.
Take this agreement - put it to the parliament. Watch as headbangers vote no but bulk of Lab/LD/SNP MPs vote yes. Be clear and open that this is a soft brexit transition, so that the opposition parties can't get away with voting it down.
We Brexit in 2019 and join EEA. UKIP lose all MEPs and any remaining political influence. Go to the country in 2021/22 and all parties can present their vision for the future, making it permanent, withdrawing entirely etc. UKIP fail, and tories and labour will likely extend or make indefinite the transitional arrangement.
Voila, Brexit sorted.
It's not certain the EU or the EFTA members will agree. The EEA was negotiated in a very different and more benign environment than Brexit. We won't know unless we try it. They certainly will not agree to the EEA as a transition or time-limited arrangement out of the EU. It would have to a be a permanent arrangement or one that leads to rejoining the EU at a later date. That doesn't stop a future government revisiting the arrangement later. The EU/EFTA EEA members would probably be aware of that risk, so it may be an issue.
The other problem is that the EEA won't actually work for us, except as a short term measure. We really aren't Norway.
However it is a sensible way out of the mess that faces us.
The EEA requires freedom to move to work, but not to live, so that could be seen as a restriction on FoM.
Yes, it's possible that the EU kick up a fuss about the transitional aspect, but car crash brexit really isn't in their interest either even if it will hurt us more - I think they would be happy to get it sorted quickly. The non-EU/EEA countries may be sceptical, as obviously we would throw it all a bit out of balance given our size, but those countries also stand more to lose from a car crash brexit and it's knock on effects from the EU, than they do by letting us join temporarily. We would obviously have to spend time buttering them up as well, but to my knowledge we are largely friendly with all of them apart from perhaps Iceland.
Certainly, it's not a perfect option, but it does seem to be the best alternative that is actually somewhat feasible. Perhaps a bit of a mushy compromise that doesn't really make anyone actively happy, but doesn't piss anyone off enough either.
@A_Liberty_Rebel: Cured my daughter of her flirtation with Sixth-Form Socialism. "Taxed" her allowance & "redistributed" it to her younger brother. #JobDone
The Tories have simply one thing to do in government this time around - make sure that Corbyn isn't the next PM. Brexit is important, solvency is important, defence is important, law and order is important - however frankly I don't care what they do with those things - the demolition of the country by Corbyn is something I never wish to see, all other matters are secondary.
Any Tory MP that makes even the slightest peep against Mrs May needs to be consigned to the tower. Of course she won't actually be making the decisions - it'll be the cabinet.
I know it's fashionable to vote for dimwits, but the UK is not in a position to indulge itself with the dangerous variety.
(repost as I posted in error on a stale thread)
Agreed that that's priority No. 1.
In a purely theoretical sense though, I wonder what the electoral effect of a Corbyn-led, 6 party rainbow minority coalition tackling Brexit would be? I'd hope it would expose his extremism and incompetence to disastrous effect, but on the other hand it might just normalise him and lead to Labour cannibalizing its former partners at the next election...
In normal times I'd almost be happy for him to demonstrate his woefulness. A prosperous country in normal times can afford a ten to twenty percent hit. We can't, courtesy of G Brown esq. If the UK goes bust the ramifications are boggling - all savings are screwed, all pension promises are screwed, welfare will be decimated, the NHS too, and the list goes on. The IMF can't afford to rescue us in the way Greece was bailed out.
The expensive indulgence of letting Corbyn show us what he's got isn't an option.
Do you think the Lib Dems would be in any form of coalition with Corbyn and anyway without the DUP he does not have the numbers
It depends who leads them. Farron is a bit hard to read on this. but I'd say with Corbyn in charge it'd be unlikely. Cable would find some way to oblige, but the rest of them probably not.
Sinn Fein may take their seats to support Corbyn, but that's best ignored. The SNP simply can't support him. The DUP wouldn't obstruct, but wouldn't support (I think this is the deal with the Tories)
@A_Liberty_Rebel: Cured my daughter of her flirtation with Sixth-Form Socialism. "Taxed" her allowance & "redistributed" it to her younger brother. #JobDone
Off the shelf Norway EEA. Put it for a transition period of 5 years from 2019 so it expires in middle of next parliament.
Brexit bill. Pay for all committed projects and other things we are actually on the hook for, that's it. EU will receive funding if we are under Norway model anyway. Maybe chuck in an extra 10 billion if we can have a fig leaf on free movement.
Take this agreement - put it to the parliament. Watch as headbangers vote no but bulk of Lab/LD/SNP MPs vote yes. Be clear and open that this is a soft brexit transition, so that the opposition parties can't get away with voting it down.
We Brexit in 2019 and join EEA. UKIP lose all MEPs and any remaining political influence. Go to the country in 2021/22 and all parties can present their vision for the future, making it permanent, withdrawing entirely etc. UKIP fail, and tories and labour will likely extend or make indefinite the transitional arrangement.
Voila, Brexit sorted.
How does it stop freedom of movement?
Why should it?
Because Vote Leave said it would?
They also promised 350m extra a week to the NHS.
8.5 billion net divided by 52 is 163 million a week.
Now that might sound similar to previous small majorities - ie after 2015 GE, Con had majority of 16.
But the difference is that with that majority of 16 they also then had the DUP to give an additional buffer - so in practice it was much more comfortable.
This time it's 13 and that's it - no other potential support anywhere (other than from Hoey, Field etc on Brexit - but that's only on Brexit).
Now to my mind 13 is just about manageable - but if it starts slipping through by-election losses it could quite quickly become untenable.
Three by-election losses would reduce it to 7 - that feels like the absolute minimum under which they could carry on with any sense of stability - by that I just mean without feeling that the Govt could fall at any moment.
So what does that mean? Reckon to get through the next two years, complete Brexit and then another GE under a new leader? Or if new leader comes in soon would they go for an immediate GE?
I can't imagine this lasting the full five years.
I did the same calculation and wondered the exact same thing today. Unless Brexit breaks down irrevocably and forces an immediate GE, the best thing would be to make May carry the can and get Brexit through by 2019, then install a new leader who knows how to campaign for a honeymoon GE thereafter. Labour won't refuse an election at any point in this Parliament, regardless of the polls!
Every day May remains in power it taints the Tory brand further. It might be beyond redemption in 2019, at least in the short term
I disagree, Brown and May showed that new leaders get honeymoons - as May's experience up to two days ago shows. Smartest thing would be to continue, take all the flack personally, and give way to somebody untainted who will then call an election.
Would May want to? The temptation to do a Cameron must be enormous. Who wants to limp through as a humiliated zombie PM through horrible brexit negotiations, chained in by her own subordinates, only to be given the boot as thanks at the end of it so that her hated rival can take all the credit and swan to victory. That is exactly what Cameron thought, and I'm sure May will come to think the same thing. She is 60, with diabetes, she has already achieved the pinnacle of her political career, she has zero allies left in the party and they hate her now.
I don't think she will be challenged, I think she will step down of her own accord.
It's not certain the EU or the EFTA members will agree. The EEA was negotiated in a very different and more benign environment than Brexit. We won't know unless we try it. They certainly will not agree to the EEA as a transition or time-limited arrangement out of the EU. It would have to a be a permanent arrangement or one that leads to rejoining the EU at a later date. That doesn't stop a future government revisiting the arrangement later. The EU/EFTA EEA members would probably be aware of that risk, so it may be an issue.
The other problem is that the EEA won't actually work for us, except as a short term measure. We really aren't Norway.
However it is a sensible way out of the mess that faces us.
The EEA requires freedom to move to work, but not to live, so that could be seen as a restriction on FoM.
Yes, it's possible that the EU kick up a fuss about the transitional aspect, but car crash brexit really isn't in their interest either even if it will hurt us more - I think they would be happy to get it sorted quickly. The non-EU/EEA countries may be sceptical, as obviously we would throw it all a bit out of balance given our size, but those countries also stand more to lose from a car crash brexit and it's knock on effects from the EU, than they do by letting us join temporarily. We would obviously have to spend time buttering them up as well, but to my knowledge we are largely friendly with all of them apart from perhaps Iceland.
Certainly, it's not a perfect option, but it does seem to be the best alternative that is actually somewhat feasible. Perhaps a bit of a mushy compromise that doesn't really make anyone actively happy, but doesn't piss anyone off enough either.
It's a worth a punt. But the government would have to do a serious sales job to the EU on EEA. A whiff of the kind of rhetoric we saw from May earlier would kill it dead.
Now that might sound similar to previous small majorities - ie after 2015 GE, Con had majority of 16.
But the difference is that with that majority of 16 they also then had the DUP to give an additional buffer - so in practice it was much more comfortable.
This time it's 13 and that's it - no other potential support anywhere (other than from Hoey, Field etc on Brexit - but that's only on Brexit).
Now to my mind 13 is just about manageable - but if it starts slipping through by-election losses it could quite quickly become untenable.
Three by-election losses would reduce it to 7 - that feels like the absolute minimum under which they could carry on with any sense of stability - by that I just mean without feeling that the Govt could fall at any moment.
So what does that mean? Reckon to get through the next two years, complete Brexit and then another GE under a new leader? Or if new leader comes in soon would they go for an immediate GE?
I can't imagine this lasting the full five years.
I did the same calculation and wondered the exact same thing today. Unless Brexit breaks down irrevocably and forces an immediate GE, the best thing would be to make May carry the can and get Brexit through by 2019, then install a new leader who knows how to campaign for a honeymoon GE thereafter. Labour won't refuse an election at any point in this Parliament, regardless of the polls!
Every day May remains in power it taints the Tory brand further. It might be beyond redemption in 2019, at least in the short term
It will be interesting if there has been polling on who the Country thinks should be PM
Yes. I feel sympathy for her. But she will be destroyed by the media daily if she hangs around. Major and Brown all over again. Need a change.
A change will come either before the October conference or after March 2019
The Tories cannot wait that long. I am not sure they can wait a week. It will look like they are just not listening and the polling will be terrible. A minority government is hopelessly vulnerable in that situation.
If it has then the the Tories are truly fucked, they are relying on dying demographic.
Ah yes another variation of "the Tories will never win again". Why do people never learn?
I'd say the Tories never learn. The only time they've won a majority since 92 is on a socially Liberal, fiscally dry platform. Banging on about hard Brexit, fox hunting and using the DUP lead me to expect will be getting songs and poetry about single mothers at party conference time again soon.
You mean the election when they promised no tax rises, spending increases all round and encouraged fear of Scottish politicians ?
It's that tax rise refusal which has lead to police cuts and so forth.
In its way Cameron's promises in 2015 were as irresponsible as any Corbyn has made this year.
Of course Cameron didn't expect to win a majority and to have to honour his promises. But that still doesn't excuse him.
One good thing about the election is that there is no particular "class" element to the vote any more. That is healthy going forward.
Great big age split though.
Clegg saying no to increasing tuition fees is an interesting 'What if'.
There's a big city-town split as well.
And a big, persistent gender split. Women much more pro-Labour then men, despite the genders of the party leaders. My suspicion is that women are more into issues like health and education and less bothered by IRA/nukes stuff.
I think the WASPI issue was quite a big thing among women of a certain age.
I wouldn't be surprised.
We want it all. We want it now. And we want someone else to pay for it.
Now that might sound similar to previous small majorities - ie after 2015 GE, Con had majority of 16.
But the difference is that with that majority of 16 they also then had the DUP to give an additional buffer - so in practice it was much more comfortable.
This time it's 13 and that's it - no other potential support anywhere (other than from Hoey, Field etc on Brexit - but that's only on Brexit).
Now to my mind 13 is just about manageable - but if it starts slipping through by-election losses it could quite quickly become untenable.
Three by-election losses would reduce it to 7 - that feels like the absolute minimum under which they could carry on with any sense of stability - by that I just mean without feeling that the Govt could fall at any moment.
So what does that mean? Reckon to get through the next two years, complete Brexit and then another GE under a new leader? Or if new leader comes in soon would they go for an immediate GE?
I can't imagine this lasting the full five years.
I did the same calculation and wondered the exact same thing today. Unless Brexit breaks down irrevocably and forces an immediate GE, the best thing would be to make May carry the can and get Brexit through by 2019, then install a new leader who knows how to campaign for a honeymoon GE thereafter. Labour won't refuse an election at any point in this Parliament, regardless of the polls!
Every day May remains in power it taints the Tory brand further. It might be beyond redemption in 2019, at least in the short term
It will be interesting if there has been polling on who the Country thinks should be PM
We know is not May. YouGov report 48%'resign, 38% stay
One good thing about the election is that there is no particular "class" element to the vote any more. That is healthy going forward.
Great big age split though.
Clegg saying no to increasing tuition fees is an interesting 'What if'.
There's a big city-town split as well.
And a big, persistent gender split. Women much more pro-Labour then men, despite the genders of the party leaders. My suspicion is that women are more into issues like health and education and less bothered by IRA/nukes stuff.
I think the WASPI issue was quite a big thing among women of a certain age.
I wouldn't be surprised.
We want it all. We want it now. And we want someone else to pay for it.
Sums up modern Britain.
Like the baby boomers. We want to sell off North Sea oil and get tax cuts We want a house price PonzI scheme We want free education And we want guaranteed good pensions despite the economic crash
Today my mother, who last year voted leave some gusto, suggested it 'isn't worth all this upheaval'. I do wonder how many people are thinking that right now.
Very many - indeed I believe a majority
A new referendum would very possibly be a Remain landslide. People just don't want to divide the nation in this way.
Comments
So, Geordie Grieg has turned on May.
What about Dacre?
The other problem is that the EEA won't actually work for us, except as a short term measure. We really aren't Norway.
However it is a sensible way out of the mess that faces us.
The EEA requires freedom to move to work, but not to live, so that could be seen as a restriction on FoM.
The expensive indulgence of letting Corbyn show us what he's got isn't an option.
I think members should start thinking about deselections of those like Chris Leslie who have done nothing but try to undermine the party (but probably not many others - certainly not the majority of the chicken coup-ers) who don't represent the local parties. Members, after all, are the people whose free time and money goes into getting them elected.
I get the argument that their mandate is to the voters, not the party members, but they can go to the voters without the local Labour Party's blessing as independents as Danczuk did if they want. We'll be able to see for sure how far it is their personal charisma that counts rather than the collective effort of the whole party.
Welp....
The "one more heave" brigade will say they didn't offer enough sweeties, is all. I still reckon half the Parliamentary party will be deeply worried that will be enough to push their credibility over the edge. And there is no-one left to hoover up. If they want power, they have to persuade Tories of the delights of red-in-tooth-and-claw socialism. Good luck with that.
The alternative, to attract Tories, is that there has to be a degree of realism on what can be offered in the next Manifesto. But you that would mean taking away some of the sweeties from those who just came out to vote of them. Tricky balancing act....
Both David and RochdalePioneers were obviously very well-informed about their parties' operations in key seats.
But the YouGov model should have been the focus of a really serious bout of analysis. It was obvious to most posters that its basic principles seemed correct. If people didn't believe the results, and yet the idea of the model seemed solid, it should have provoked extremely intense curiosity, particularly given the betting opportunities if it was even half-right.
(If it is the future, it might be time to learn some Python or R, or at least serious Excel wizardry...)
However, if a new leader comes in quickly I suspect they'll go for an immediate GE.
The thing is that momentum is key. Clinging on with a tiny majority makes you look weak and gives the sense that things are slipping away.
So if, eg, Boris became leader this Autumn I think he would feel he had to go for the immediate GE.
As a Con supporter, my preference would be for May to do Brexit, then a new leader in 2019 and a GE then.
And before anyone says "We're out if we do nothing", crashing out means more years of chaos, so it's not "done" by any measure.
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/873638345733222400
Certainly, it's not a perfect option, but it does seem to be the best alternative that is actually somewhat feasible. Perhaps a bit of a mushy compromise that doesn't really make anyone actively happy, but doesn't piss anyone off enough either.
"Taxed" her allowance & "redistributed" it to her younger brother.
#JobDone
Sinn Fein may take their seats to support Corbyn, but that's best ignored. The SNP simply can't support him. The DUP wouldn't obstruct, but wouldn't support (I think this is the deal with the Tories)
NEW THREAD
I don't think she will be challenged, I think she will step down of her own accord.
Of course Cameron didn't expect to win a majority and to have to honour his promises. But that still doesn't excuse him.
We want it all.
We want it now.
And we want someone else to pay for it.
Sums up modern Britain.
We want to sell off North Sea oil and get tax cuts
We want a house price PonzI scheme
We want free education
And we want guaranteed good pensions despite the economic crash
DUP poster in 2010.
"I want an MP who answers to us - not to the Tories"