I'd rate an incoming Labour Government, now, at 50/50 to renege on Brexit.
The EU might help them out too, given so many see Brexit as a Tory party obsession alone.
If a Labour government reneges on Brexit surely you then get a Brexiteer leading the Tories and romping to a landslide victory in the next general election on a Brexit ticket, or a reinvigorated UKIP manages to win several dozen seats.
I agree with Mr. Meeks. But I'd add another point.
Politics involves being governed by those who persuade us through campaigning, but campaigning and governing are two totally different skills. One is sales, one is management. Or, to use a mildly historical comparison, one is Machiavelli's The Prince (in which he advocates a strongman taking control by ruthless pragmatism) and one is his Discourses on Livy (in which he extols the virtues of a republican constitution, as Rome once had).
Another campaigning period, shortly after the last, plays to Corbyn's strength. A period of governing/opposing plays to his weakness.
Just a thought - but if Jo Swinson becomes leader of the Lib Dems, then only Labour and Sinn Fein, of all Parties in the Commons, will not have female leaders.
Conservatives - Theresa May SNP - Nicola Sturgeon Lib Dems - Jo Swinson (is this happens) DUP - Arlene Foster Plaid Cymru - Leanne Wood Greens - Caroline Lucas ... even the Independent is female (Sylvia Hermon)
If the rumour about the Scottish Conservatives breaking away to become their own parliamentary group, it would be even more underlined...
Just a thought - but if Jo Swinson becomes leader of the Lib Dems, then only Labour and Sinn Fein, of all Parties in the Commons, will not have female leaders.
Conservatives - Theresa May SNP - Nicola Sturgeon Lib Dems - Jo Swinson (is this happens) DUP - Arlene Foster Plaid Cymru - Leanne Wood Greens - Caroline Lucas ... even the Independent is female (Sylvia Hermon)
If the rumour about the Scottish Conservatives breaking away to become their own parliamentary group, it would be even more underlined...
All of this assumes that the Tories stay in government, which is, admittedly, the plan at the moment. I don't think that it can wholly be relied upon though.
The 318 Tory MPs can't be unelected though, won't dissolve, and are very unlikely to die out or quit in significant numbers.
So, they stay - to bedblock out Labour, if nothing else - unless the DUP pull the plug *and* no confidence them, together with everyone else.
I think this Parliament lasts for as long as Corbyn or McDonnell lead the opposition.
Bedblocking Labour is short-term expediency which is likely to lead to a Labour majority government as the May attempts to cobble together deals on a vote-by-vote basis, to the tune of growing dissent from the backbenches, Scotland, Wales and everywhere else that perceives itself to be paying for largesse to N Ireland - before we even get into the difficulties of Brexit.
Better to go into opposition now, let Corbyn be seen to fail in government (as must inevitably be the case for a party in such a weak position, never mind one led by someone with no experience of, or temperament for, government). Then bring Labour down at a time of the Tories' choosing.
That is a very high risk strategy.
It was also Arthur Balfour's strategy in 1905 with putting the Liberals into a minority Government (who then called for and got the Liberal Landslide of 1906) and Asquith's strategy in 1923 in supporting Labour to take the helm (leading to the near-extinction of the Liberal Party). In fact, having immediately thought of two examples where it backfired horrendously, I can't think of even one where it worked.
Baldwin became Tory leader in 1923 after Bonar Law had won a Tory majority in 1922 and resigned. Baldwin called an unnecessary snap election and unexpectedly lost the Tory majority,. Rather than go on, he allowed Labour to come to power even though it was only the second largest party. Labour screwed up for 9 months and then Baldwin won the 1924 election for the Tories with one of its biggest landslides.
I don't think he deliberately allowed them to come to power. IIRC he put forwards a King's Speech and was defeated on it, and it included the addendum "And that this House has no confidence in His Majesty's Government"
Indeed, it was more down to Asquith game-playing badly (again). All the same, the minority Labour government still fell and was still replaced by a substantial Con majority.
Just a thought - but if Jo Swinson becomes leader of the Lib Dems, then only Labour and Sinn Fein, of all Parties in the Commons, will not have female leaders.
"Somehow we have reached a point where older people with assets expect younger, poorer people to pay for their care."
But this is the very point of the conservative party. It's at the core of contemporary conservative ideology.
F*ck the young and the poor as hard as possible.
Tories keep missing the point here. Older people did not reject paying something towards their care. That wasn't on the table. They objected to paying random catastrophic costs which they are unable to insure through markets or collectivise through government. Dilnot identified this problem explicitly and was ignored.
Timothy's analysis is astonishingly shallow and linear. How did he get the job?
The public has shown no interest in an insurance solution. Why should one be imposed on them?
Because they object even more vehemently to paying random catastrophic costs ?
The Conservatives have wasted almost a year now. If one wanted an example of drift and dither one could hardly have had a better example than the government reaction to the BREXIT vote.
I said at the time that May should have announced Article 50 would be invoked on 31 Dec 2016 with the UK leaving on 31st Dec 2018, if necessary after a resolution of both houses of parliament soon after the vote. Absolute certainty was required. Instead the EU are faced with a weak and fatally wounded PM with no mandate and with a febrile HoC desirous of multiple solutions.
The worst negotiating position possible.
All that is true (except I don't think Article 50 being invoked in May rather than December made much difference).
However, we are where we are. The question now is how to minimise the damage from Theresa May's catastrophic general election disaster. There are certainly no good options.
Indeed. There are "no good options". However in my view dithering further with a weak leader and the DUP holding the axe on the scaffold is the very worst position.
Your suggestion is a minority administration, or cutting & running?
Conservative minority government.
Also set up a cross party commission for BREXIT.
I agree, in principle. I think a cross-party commission would descend into recrimination and farce, though.
And it would probably be extremely Remainey.
We are in uncharted waters.
I would go for a most radical approach. Make the BREXIT department an open department with members of all parties. Tory cabinet minister, Labour MoS and other ministers too - Put simply a Coalition for BRIXIT ....
All of this assumes that the Tories stay in government, which is, admittedly, the plan at the moment. I don't think that it can wholly be relied upon though.
The 318 Tory MPs can't be unelected though, won't dissolve, and are very unlikely to die out or quit in significant numbers.
So, they stay - to bedblock out Labour, if nothing else - unless the DUP pull the plug *and* no confidence them, together with everyone else.
I think this Parliament lasts for as long as Corbyn or McDonnell lead the opposition.
Bedblocking Labour is short-term expediency which is likely to lead to a Labour majority government as the May attempts to cobble together deals on a vote-by-vote basis, to the tune of growing dissent from the backbenches, Scotland, Wales and everywhere else that perceives itself to be paying for largesse to N Ireland - before we even get into the difficulties of Brexit.
Better to go into opposition now, let Corbyn be seen to fail in government (as must inevitably be the case for a party in such a weak position, never mind one led by someone with no experience of, or temperament for, government). Then bring Labour down at a time of the Tories' choosing.
That is a very high risk strategy.
It was also Arthur Balfour's strategy in 1905 with putting the Liberals into a minority Government (who then called for and got the Liberal Landslide of 1906) and Asquith's strategy in 1923 in supporting Labour to take the helm (leading to the near-extinction of the Liberal Party). In fact, having immediately thought of two examples where it backfired horrendously, I can't think of even one where it worked.
Theresa May had served as Prime Minister from 2016 until 19 June 2017, when she chose to resign over growing unpopularity, having called a general election which saw her majority cut. May had hoped that under a Labour government splits would reemerge, which would therefore help the Conservative Party achieve victory at the next election. The incoming Labour government chose to capitalise on the Conservative government's unpopularity and called an immediate general election in the autumn of 2017, which resulted in a crushing defeat for the Conservatives.
I'd rate an incoming Labour Government, now, at 50/50 to renege on Brexit.
The EU might help them out too, given so many see Brexit as a Tory party obsession alone.
All of this assumes that the Tories stay in government, which is, admittedly, the plan at the moment. I don't think that it can wholly be relied upon though.
The 318 Tory MPs can't be unelected though, won't dissolve, and are very unlikely to die out or quit in significant numbers.
So, they stay - to bedblock out Labour, if nothing else - unless the DUP pull the plug *and* no confidence them, together with everyone else.
I think this Parliament lasts for as long as Corbyn or McDonnell lead the opposition.
Bedblocking Labour is short-term expediency which is likely to lead to a Labour majority government as the May attempts to cobble together deals on a vote-by-vote basis, to the tune of growing dissent from the backbenches, Scotland, Wales and everywhere else that perceives itself to be paying for largesse to N Ireland - before we even get into the difficulties of Brexit.
Better to go into opposition now, let Corbyn be seen to fail in government (as must inevitably be the case for a party in such a weak position, never mind one led by someone with no experience of, or temperament for, government). Then bring Labour down at a time of the Tories' choosing.
"Better to go into opposition now" is first of all what got the Cons into trouble just now by thinking they could manage such a complex, dynamic system; it would be 1,000 times more unmanageable if they were actually in opposition.
And secondly, "better to go into opposition now" is the antithesis of what a political party is all about. No matter how bonkersly disfunctional the Conservative Party happens to be right now, which I appreciate is very.
It's not so much the Conservative Party which is dysfunctional (though to an extent, it is); it's that the nature of this parliament is such that it makes just about any government dysfunctional - something that must play against that government and in favour of the opposition. As such, if the choice is between a Labour government now and a Labour government later, then better to take the one that has its wings most clipped.
Perhaps. But things can sail on, Titanic-like, after the iceberg, for quite some time before anyone notices. And even then, events may mean circumstances change quite dramatically and the volatility around your direction would increase dramatically.
Applies to a Cons govt also but I think the adage better a bird in the hand would apply here.
Just a thought - but if Jo Swinson becomes leader of the Lib Dems, then only Labour and Sinn Fein, of all Parties in the Commons, will not have female leaders.
Conservatives - Theresa May SNP - Nicola Sturgeon Lib Dems - Jo Swinson (is this happens) DUP - Arlene Foster Plaid Cymru - Leanne Wood Greens - Caroline Lucas ... even the Independent is female (Sylvia Hermon)
If the rumour about the Scottish Conservatives breaking away to become their own parliamentary group, it would be even more underlined...
I'm not sure the rumour holds much water. They would surely want this parliament to run a while as it's difficult to see them improving numerically on their current position. A resurgent Labour might indicate ScotLab are the emerging danger to the SNP right now.
Thanks Alastair. Yes, I agree with all that but would add a further consideration, which kind of cuts both ways.
The Conservatives are between a rock and a very hard place. The rock is the near certainty of a heavy election defeat if they go to the country soon. The very hard place is the even heavier defeat they are likely to suffer the longer the Government hangs on. You could argue that they'd be better off taking the former option as the lesser of two evils, especially as they would probably return with a hefty majority after five years of Labour misrule. Paradoxically Labour might well actually prefer their opponents to stay put and take the considerable flak coming to whoever has to manage Brexit and the deteriorating economic situation (whilst of course maintaining publicly that they want to take over.) In fact the Government's problem in this situation would be to find a sufficiently plausible explanation for calling an election and handing the sackful of hot potatoes over to Labour, but I guess they could come up with something.
So what is going to happen? Dunno. It's totally unpredictable. I'm pretty sure May will stay on, if only as Fall Girl, for the foreseeable future. The Government will soldier on, hoping that 'something will turn up'. If it all falls apart and they have to go to the Country, well, at least they are then rid of the mess and can begin the repair work the Party so badly needs. If it doesn't, they get five years in office and the prospect of handing over to Labour's tender care a Nation which is in deep shit.
Enjoy the fine weather everybody.
What do you think of the unsourced Tory MPs who were cited in the Spectator less than 5 weeks ago that they expected to be in Government "until the 2040s" ?
I'd rate an incoming Labour Government, now, at 50/50 to renege on Brexit.
The EU might help them out too, given so many see Brexit as a Tory party obsession alone.
If a Labour government reneges on Brexit surely you then get a Brexiteer leading the Tories and romping to a landslide victory in the next general election on a Brexit ticket, or a reinvigorated UKIP manages to win several dozen seats.
Die-hard remainers are getting over-excited.
Im mildly amused at your certainty of a brexiteer romping to a major victory and more so that UKIP would win several dozen seats. I have a sneaking fealing that the population are waking up to the mess were in and the lies they were sold from both sides. The public have moved on and are more focused on issues closer to home and themselves, soVeriegnty is not a big issue and they can see the NHS isnt getting £350m a week.
All of this assumes that the Tories stay in government, which is, admittedly, the plan at the moment. I don't think that it can wholly be relied upon though.
The 318 Tory MPs can't be unelected though, won't dissolve, and are very unlikely to die out or quit in significant numbers.
So, they stay - to bedblock out Labour, if nothing else - unless the DUP pull the plug *and* no confidence them, together with everyone else.
I think this Parliament lasts for as long as Corbyn or McDonnell lead the opposition.
Bedblocking Labour is short-term expediency which is likely to lead to a Labour majority government as the May attempts to cobble together deals on a vote-by-vote basis, to the tune of growing dissent from the backbenches, Scotland, Wales and everywhere else that perceives itself to be paying for largesse to N Ireland - before we even get into the difficulties of Brexit.
Better to go into opposition now, let Corbyn be seen to fail in government (as must inevitably be the case for a party in such a weak position, never mind one led by someone with no experience of, or temperament for, government). Then bring Labour down at a time of the Tories' choosing.
That is a very high risk strategy.
It was also Arthur Balfour's strategy in 1905 with putting the Liberals into a minority Government (who then called for and got the Liberal Landslide of 1906) and Asquith's strategy in 1923 in supporting Labour to take the helm (leading to the near-extinction of the Liberal Party). In fact, having immediately thought of two examples where it backfired horrendously, I can't think of even one where it worked.
Theresa May had served as Prime Minister from 2016 until 19 June 2017, when she chose to resign over growing unpopularity, having called a general election which saw her majority cut. May had hoped that under a Labour government splits would reemerge, which would therefore help the Conservative Party achieve victory at the next election. The incoming Labour government chose to capitalise on the Conservative government's unpopularity and called an immediate general election in the autumn of 2017, which resulted in a crushing defeat for the Conservatives.
I'd rate an incoming Labour Government, now, at 50/50 to renege on Brexit.
The EU might help them out too, given so many see Brexit as a Tory party obsession alone.
Under Corbyn?
Corbyn will delegate most of his policy on Brexit/EU. I don't think he sees it as a particularly important issue.
The 318 Tory MPs can't be unelected though, won't dissolve, and are very unlikely to die out or quit in significant numbers.
So, they stay - to bedblock out Labour, if nothing else - unless the DUP pull the plug *and* no confidence them, together with everyone else.
I think this Parliament lasts for as long as Corbyn or McDonnell lead the opposition.
Bedblocking Labour is short-term expediency which is likely to lead to a Labour majority government as the May attempts to cobble together deals on a vote-by-vote basis, to the tune of growing dissent from the backbenches, Scotland, Wales and everywhere else that perceives itself to be paying for largesse to N Ireland - before we even get into the difficulties of Brexit.
Better to go into opposition now, let Corbyn be seen to fail in government (as must inevitably be the case for a party in such a weak position, never mind one led by someone with no experience of, or temperament for, government). Then bring Labour down at a time of the Tories' choosing.
That is a very high risk strategy.
It was also Arthur Balfour's strategy in 1905 with putting the Liberals into a minority Government (who then called for and got the Liberal Landslide of 1906) and Asquith's strategy in 1923 in supporting Labour to take the helm (leading to the near-extinction of the Liberal Party). In fact, having immediately thought of two examples where it backfired horrendously, I can't think of even one where it worked.
Baldwin became Tory leader in 1923 after Bonar Law had won a Tory majority in 1922 and resigned. Baldwin called an unnecessary snap election and unexpectedly lost the Tory majority,. Rather than go on, he allowed Labour to come to power even though it was only the second largest party. Labour screwed up for 9 months and then Baldwin won the 1924 election for the Tories with one of its biggest landslides.
I don't think he deliberately allowed them to come to power. IIRC he put forwards a King's Speech and was defeated on it, and it included the addendum "And that this House has no confidence in His Majesty's Government"
Indeed, it was more down to Asquith game-playing badly (again). All the same, the minority Labour government still fell and was still replaced by a substantial Con majority.
It did work out well for the Conservatives - but the party that played the game and whose leader used that strategy got smashed badly.
F1: Sainz only has a 3 place grid penalty for the lap one crash that took out himself and Massa. Very light, especially as it ruined my safety car bet.
Just a thought - but if Jo Swinson becomes leader of the Lib Dems, then only Labour and Sinn Fein, of all Parties in the Commons, will not have female leaders.
Conservatives - Theresa May SNP - Nicola Sturgeon Lib Dems - Jo Swinson (is this happens) DUP - Arlene Foster Plaid Cymru - Leanne Wood Greens - Caroline Lucas ... even the Independent is female (Sylvia Hermon)
If the rumour about the Scottish Conservatives breaking away to become their own parliamentary group, it would be even more underlined...
Caroline is co-leader though. To be pedantic.
This is pb.com; pedantry is compulsory.
However, if it happened, it would please my sensibilities for Yvette Cooper to become Labour leader.
The Conservatives have wasted almost a year now. If one wanted an example of drift and dither one could hardly have had a better example than the government reaction to the BREXIT vote.
I said at the time that May should have announced Article 50 would be invoked on 31 Dec 2016 with the UK leaving on 31st Dec 2018, if necessary after a resolution of both houses of parliament soon after the vote. Absolute certainty was required. Instead the EU are faced with a weak and fatally wounded PM with no mandate and with a febrile HoC desirous of multiple solutions.
The worst negotiating position possible.
All that is true (except I don't think Article 50 being invoked in May rather than December made much difference).
However, we are where we are. The question now is how to minimise the damage from Theresa May's catastrophic general election disaster. There are certainly no good options.
Indeed. There are "no good options". However in my view dithering further with a weak leader and the DUP holding the axe on the scaffold is the very worst position.
Your suggestion is a minority administration, or cutting & running?
Conservative minority government.
Also set up a cross party commission for BREXIT.
I agree, in principle. I think a cross-party commission would descend into recrimination and farce, though.
And it would probably be extremely Remainey.
We are in uncharted waters.
I would go for a most radical approach. Make the BREXIT department an open department with members of all parties. Tory cabinet minister, Labour MoS and other ministers too - Put simply a Coalition for BRIXIT ....
Member A: I want membership of the single market Member B: I don't want membership of the single market
Just a thought - but if Jo Swinson becomes leader of the Lib Dems, then only Labour and Sinn Fein, of all Parties in the Commons, will not have female leaders.
Conservatives - Theresa May SNP - Nicola Sturgeon Lib Dems - Jo Swinson (is this happens) DUP - Arlene Foster Plaid Cymru - Leanne Wood Greens - Caroline Lucas ... even the Independent is female (Sylvia Hermon)
If the rumour about the Scottish Conservatives breaking away to become their own parliamentary group, it would be even more underlined...
Sinn Fein has a female leader too! Michelle O'Neill!
"Somehow we have reached a point where older people with assets expect younger, poorer people to pay for their care."
But this is the very point of the conservative party. It's at the core of contemporary conservative ideology.
F*ck the young and the poor as hard as possible.
Tories keep missing the point here. Older people did not reject paying something towards their care. That wasn't on the table. They objected to paying random catastrophic costs which they are unable to insure through markets or collectivise through government. Dilnot identified this problem explicitly and was ignored.
Timothy's analysis is astonishingly shallow and linear. How did he get the job?
The public has shown no interest in an insurance solution. Why should one be imposed on them?
Because they object even more vehemently to paying random catastrophic costs ?
After careful consideration the public has decided that on balance they would prefer not to get dementia. And who can blame them?
I'm quite sure that wealthier pensioners would like to be subsidised by the rest of us. I'm not at all sure why they should be if they have no interest in insuring against the risk that they run.
The Conservatives have wasted almost a year now. If one wanted an example of drift and dither one could hardly have had a better example than the government reaction to the BREXIT vote.
I said at the time that May should have announced Article 50 would be invoked on 31 Dec 2016 with the UK leaving on 31st Dec 2018, if necessary after a resolution of both houses of parliament soon after the vote. Absolute certainty was required. Instead the EU are faced with a weak and fatally wounded PM with no mandate and with a febrile HoC desirous of multiple solutions.
The worst negotiating position possible.
All that is true (except I don't think Article 50 being invoked in May rather than December made much difference).
However, we are where we are. The question now is how to minimise the damage from Theresa May's catastrophic general election disaster. There are certainly no good options.
Indeed. There are "no good options". However in my view dithering further with a weak leader and the DUP holding the axe on the scaffold is the very worst position.
Your suggestion is a minority administration, or cutting & running?
Conservative minority government.
Also set up a cross party commission for BREXIT.
I agree, in principle. I think a cross-party commission would descend into recrimination and farce, though.
And it would probably be extremely Remainey.
We are in uncharted waters.
I would go for a most radical approach. Make the BREXIT department an open department with members of all parties. Tory cabinet minister, Labour MoS and other ministers too - Put simply a Coalition for BRIXIT ....
Member A: I want membership of the single market Member B: I don't want membership of the single market
Repeat ad infinitum..
And what pray do you think we have at the moment?
If we give multiple parties a stake in the issue we might just, just make some progress.
Just a thought - but if Jo Swinson becomes leader of the Lib Dems, then only Labour and Sinn Fein, of all Parties in the Commons, will not have female leaders.
Conservatives - Theresa May SNP - Nicola Sturgeon Lib Dems - Jo Swinson (is this happens) DUP - Arlene Foster Plaid Cymru - Leanne Wood Greens - Caroline Lucas ... even the Independent is female (Sylvia Hermon)
If the rumour about the Scottish Conservatives breaking away to become their own parliamentary group, it would be even more underlined...
There must be a pb thread header about "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women" in there somewhere.
1. The DUP deal (assuming there is one) is open to legal challenge as it may well contravene the Good Friday Agreement. Do we expect Sinn Fein to merrily go along with it? Most likely they will be already getting their lawyers to sharpen their pencils, as indicated last night on Channel 4 news.
2. There could be defections, as others have mentioned (most likely to the Liberals). Less likely than likely, but very possible, particular if, as is likely, the Tories become deeply unpopular very soon.
3. The DUP may very soon be tainted by Tory shambling. As soon as they sniff that, they will dump the government.
I think point one is worthy of much greater discussion. It might be that it doesn't matter, and that the DUP keep propping up the government no matter what. Or it might not.
On point 1, the idea that one group in a parliament cannot do a deal with another group in a parliament is nuts, and is a good example of the delicate balance of hypocrisy, internal contradictions and blind-eye turning that bedevils Northern Irish politics. That's not to say that there wouldn't be consequences from doing so, nor that it would necessarily be wise to do so, but the option should be there.
And indeed it is there. One of the most fundamental principles of the UK constitution is that no parliament can bind a successor (in legal terms; practically, it does all sorts of things that can never be undone or redone). If the GFA prevents MPs in this parliament from voluntarily operating together then the GFA might well be ruled unconstitutional - but once you start unpicking there, the whole fabric of the settlement comes undone.
David – indeed those are fair points. But, as you imply, logic and Northern Irish politics are rarely bedfellows.
Just a thought - but if Jo Swinson becomes leader of the Lib Dems, then only Labour and Sinn Fein, of all Parties in the Commons, will not have female leaders.
Conservatives - Theresa May SNP - Nicola Sturgeon Lib Dems - Jo Swinson (is this happens) DUP - Arlene Foster Plaid Cymru - Leanne Wood Greens - Caroline Lucas ... even the Independent is female (Sylvia Hermon)
If the rumour about the Scottish Conservatives breaking away to become their own parliamentary group, it would be even more underlined...
Sinn Fein has a female leader too! Michelle O'Neill!
Nah. She has the GOT title of Leader in the North. Gerry has taken complete control as El Presidente.
All of this assumes that the Tories stay in government, which is, admittedly, the plan at the moment. I don't think that it can wholly be relied upon though.
The 318 Tory MPs can't be unelected though, won't dissolve, and are very unlikely to die out or quit in significant numbers.
So, they stay - to bedblock out Labour, if nothing else - unless the DUP pull the plug *and* no confidence them, together with everyone else.
I think this Parliament lasts for as long as Corbyn or McDonnell lead the opposition.
Bedblocking Labour is short-term expediency which is likely to lead to a Labour majority government as the May attempts to cobble together deals on a vote-by-vote basis, to the tune of growing dissent from the backbenches, Scotland, Wales and everywhere else that perceives itself to be paying for largesse to N Ireland - before we even get into the difficulties of Brexit.
Better to go into opposition now, let Corbyn be seen to fail in government (as must inevitably be the case for a party in such a weak position, never mind one led by someone with no experience of, or temperament for, government). Then bring Labour down at a time of the Tories' choosing.
That is a very high risk strategy.
It was also Arthur Balfour's strategy in 1905 with putting the Liberals into a minority Government (who then called for and got the Liberal Landslide of 1906) and Asquith's strategy in 1923 in supporting Labour to take the helm (leading to the near-extinction of the Liberal Party). In fact, having immediately thought of two examples where it backfired horrendously, I can't think of even one where it worked.
Theresa May had served as Prime Minister from 2016 until 19 June 2017, when she chose to resign over growing unpopularity, having called a general election which saw her majority cut. May had hoped that under a Labour government splits would reemerge, which would therefore help the Conservative Party achieve victory at the next election. The incoming Labour government chose to capitalise on the Conservative government's unpopularity and called an immediate general election in the autumn of 2017, which resulted in a crushing defeat for the Conservatives.
Ha! An elegantly worded counterfactual which, I suppose, might just yet be a factual!
Thanks Alastair. Yes, I agree with all that but would add a further consideration, which kind of cuts both ways.
The Conservatives are between a rock and a very hard place. The rock is the near certainty of a heavy election defeat if they go to the country soon. The very hard place is the even heavier defeat they are likely to suffer the longer the Government hangs on. You could argue that they'd be better off taking the former option as the lesser of two evils, especially as they would probably return with a hefty majority after five years of Labour misrule. Paradoxically Labour might well actually prefer their opponents to stay put and take the considerable flak coming to whoever has to manage Brexit and the deteriorating economic situation (whilst of course maintaining publicly that they want to take over.) In fact the Government's problem in this situation would be to find a sufficiently plausible explanation for calling an election and handing the sackful of hot potatoes over to Labour, but I guess they could come up with something.
So what is going to happen? Dunno. It's totally unpredictable. I'm pretty sure May will stay on, if only as Fall Girl, for the foreseeable future. The Government will soldier on, hoping that 'something will turn up'. If it all falls apart and they have to go to the Country, well, at least they are then rid of the mess and can begin the repair work the Party so badly needs. If it doesn't, they get five years in office and the prospect of handing over to Labour's tender care a Nation which is in deep shit.
Enjoy the fine weather everybody.
What do you think of the unsourced Tory MPs who were cited in the Spectator less than 5 weeks ago that they expected to be in Government "until the 2040s" ?
Just a thought - but if Jo Swinson becomes leader of the Lib Dems, then only Labour and Sinn Fein, of all Parties in the Commons, will not have female leaders.
Conservatives - Theresa May SNP - Nicola Sturgeon Lib Dems - Jo Swinson (is this happens) DUP - Arlene Foster Plaid Cymru - Leanne Wood Greens - Caroline Lucas ... even the Independent is female (Sylvia Hermon)
If the rumour about the Scottish Conservatives breaking away to become their own parliamentary group, it would be even more underlined...
Sinn Fein has a female leader too! Michelle O'Neill!
Nah. She has the GOT title of Leader in the North. Gerry has taken complete control as El Presidente.
As last time Richard Burgon makes the preamble about being sent by the people of Leeds there and therefore swearing on the Queen only to be able to represent them not because he believes in it.
F1: Sainz only has a 3 place grid penalty for the lap one crash that took out himself and Massa. Very light, especially as it ruined my safety car bet.
Quite right for you to be upset, Mr.D. They are displaying a disgraceful lack of concern.
All of this assumes that the Tories stay in government, which is, admittedly, the plan at the moment. I don't think that it can wholly be relied upon though.
The 318 Tory MPs can't be unelected though, won't dissolve, and are very unlikely to die out or quit in significant numbers.
So, they stay - to bedblock out Labour, if nothing else - unless the DUP pull the plug *and* no confidence them, together with everyone else.
I think this Parliament lasts for as long as Corbyn or McDonnell lead the opposition.
Bedblocking Labour is short-term expediency which is likely to lead to a Labour majority government as the May attempts to cobble together deals on a vote-by-vote basis, to the tune of growing dissent from the backbenches, Scotland, Wales and everywhere else that perceives itself to be paying for largesse to N Ireland - before we even get into the difficulties of Brexit.
Better to go into opposition now, let Corbyn be seen to fail in government (as must inevitably be the case for a party in such a weak position, never mind one led by someone with no experience of, or temperament for, government). Then bring Labour down at a time of the Tories' choosing.
That is a very high risk strategy.
It
Theresa May had served as Prime Minister from 2016 until 19 June 2017, when she chose to resign over growing unpopularity, having called a general election which saw her majority cut. May had hoped that under a Labour government splits would reemerge, which would therefore help the Conservative Party achieve victory at the next election. The incoming Labour government chose to capitalise on the Conservative government's unpopularity and called an immediate general election in the autumn of 2017, which resulted in a crushing defeat for the Conservatives.
I'd rate an incoming Labour Government, now, at 50/50 to renege on Brexit.
The EU might help them out too, given so many see Brexit as a Tory party obsession alone.
Under Corbyn?
Yes, if he got a lot of other socialism through in exchange.
The EU is the thing that matters most to most Labour MPs. They will think like ardent Remainers, believe public opinion will turn, and over 95% of them absolutely hate Brexit.
If we're going to undo Brexit, can we please undo a few other things and go back to Cameron and Osborne?
I'd raise a glass to that Richard, but sadly it ain't gonna happen.
Somewhere in Notting Hill David Cameron must be wistfully considering whether he should have stayed in the House of Commons a while longer.
Isn't it amazing? If he had just been able to put ego to one side and be a steady pair of hands over an issue that he had devolved to the general public anyway, we would have been so much better off.
Instead he had a crap in a paper bag on the doorstep of No10, set it alight and shouted "Fire" at Theresa May
If we're going to undo Brexit, can we please undo a few other things and go back to Cameron and Osborne?
I'd raise a glass to that Richard, but sadly it ain't gonna happen.
Somewhere in Notting Hill David Cameron must be wistfully considering whether he should have stayed in the House of Commons a while longer.
Isn't it amazing? If he had just been able to put ego to one side and be a steady pair of hands over an issue that he had devolved to the general public anyway, we would have been so much better off.
He had a crap in a paper bag on the doorstep of No10, set it alight and shouted "Fire" at Theresa May
He had to go last June. But if he were in Parliament right now he'd be forming the next government.
The frontbenches have finished taking the oath/affirmation
it's good to remember that Debbie Abrahams, Barbara Keeley, Kate Osamor, Andy McDonald, Christina Rees, Peter Dowd, Sue Hayman are the in the shadow cabinet.
I can see several Tory, Remainers and Leavers, who could protest at the actions of the government on Brexit and quit the whip and sit as Independents.
That would not be the end of the world, I'm sure they would vote with the government on all non Brexit issues. Someone like Wollaston defecting to the Lib Dems would be a bigger problem.
Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston could both be defection risks.
Clarke, Soubry, Morgan etc. never would.
I was thinking the same, but also included Soubry. Why do you think she isn't a defection risk to the LDs? She has been very vocal recently, her views on Brexit chime and her seat is at very high risk indeed so hasn't a lot to lose.
It isn't credible to the Conservatives or their supporters to cut and run, by the way.
The Conservatives won most seats, and most votes, and got rather a lot of them at that.
If the DUP doesn't work out, they should try the Queen's speech solo. If that doesn't get voted down (it won't, because the LDs at the very least will abstain) then they continue in office.
Are you're the Liberals would abstain and prop up the Tories? With Jo Swinson in, they might gain seats in a subsequent GE.
St Ives, NE Fife, North Devon, Cheltenham, Cheadle, Lewes, Richmond Park would be gains in a new GE I think. I severely doubt the Lib Dems will support this Tory party in any way, shape or form (Certainly this parliament).
Which seats do you think Labour would strip off the Tories in another snap GE this year?
If we're going to undo Brexit, can we please undo a few other things and go back to Cameron and Osborne?
I'd raise a glass to that Richard, but sadly it ain't gonna happen.
Somewhere in Notting Hill David Cameron must be wistfully considering whether he should have stayed in the House of Commons a while longer.
Isn't it amazing? If he had just been able to put ego to one side and be a steady pair of hands over an issue that he had devolved to the general public anyway, we would have been so much better off.
He had a crap in a paper bag on the doorstep of No10, set it alight and shouted "Fire" at Theresa May
He had to go last June. But if he were in Parliament right now he'd be forming the next government.
He shouldn't have nailed his colours to the mast that's for sure, but I don't really see why he 100% had to go. The vote to Leave threw everything into chaos, why create more?
Surely there must be serious enquiries now as to whether Article 50 is revocable. The government is paralysed, time is running out and Liam's numerous trade deals aren't quite ready. Combined with Brexit, this parliamentary chaos could induce serious national harm of the type no one, not even most Remainers, seriously envisaged. Can't we ask for some kind of extension, like my English teacher once gave me for a Jane Austen essay?
There is an option to extend for 12 months but it requires the assent of all 27 other EU members. Not sure whether we'd get that, given the shambles our political masters have presided over thus far.
Shortly after the referendum my daughter copied me on a memo she wrote for the Partners in her law firm on the implications of Brexit. She commented in passing that in the then apparently unlikely event that the UK changed its mind, it simply had to tell the EU so and in every likelihood the Article 50 letter would be shredded, and all would be as before. Nothing I have seen or heard since suggests to me she was wrong in this.
The political dimension also has to be considered, but we have already heard from France and Germany that they would happily keep us in, if asked. So all it really needs is for the UK Government to ask.
That of course is the tricky bit. It might be good for the Country, but would it be good for the Government? And would the Govenment put the Nation's interests ahead of its own?
The Conservatives have wasted almost a year now. If one wanted an example of drift and dither one could hardly have had a better example than the government reaction to the BREXIT vote.
I said at the time that May should have announced Article 50 would be invoked on 31 Dec 2016 with the UK leaving on 31st Dec 2018, if necessary after a resolution of both houses of parliament soon after the vote. Absolute certainty was required. Instead the EU are faced with a weak and fatally wounded PM with no mandate and with a febrile HoC desirous of multiple solutions.
The worst negotiating position possible.
All that is true (except I don't think Article 50 being invoked in May rather than December made much difference).
However, we are where we are. The question now is how to minimise the damage from Theresa May's catastrophic general election disaster. There are certainly no good options.
Indeed. There are "no good options". However in my view dithering further with a weak leader and the DUP holding the axe on the scaffold is the very worst position.
Your suggestion is a minority administration, or cutting & running?
Conservative minority government.
Also set up a cross party commission for BREXIT.
I agree, in principle. I think a cross-party commission would descend into recrimination and farce, though.
And it would probably be extremely Remainey.
We are in uncharted waters.
I would go for a most radical approach. Make the BREXIT department an open department with members of all parties. Tory cabinet minister, Labour MoS and other ministers too - Put simply a Coalition for BRIXIT ....
Member A: I want membership of the single market Member B: I don't want membership of the single market
Repeat ad infinitum..
And what pray do you think we have at the moment?
If we give multiple parties a stake in the issue we might just, just make some progress.
Brexit isn't life or death; it's more important than that. But yes of course we are all just wondering whether to have a Pimms or a pink gin as the Titanic steams on...
Surely there must be serious enquiries now as to whether Article 50 is revocable. The government is paralysed, time is running out and Liam's numerous trade deals aren't quite ready. Combined with Brexit, this parliamentary chaos could induce serious national harm of the type no one, not even most Remainers, seriously envisaged. Can't we ask for some kind of extension, like my English teacher once gave me for a Jane Austen essay?
There is an option to extend for 12 months but it requires the assent of all 27 other EU members. Not sure whether we'd get that, given the shambles our political masters have presided over thus far.
Shortly after the referendum my daughter copied me on a memo she wrote for the Partners in her law firm on the implications of Brexit. She commented in passing that in the then apparently unlikely event that the UK changed its mind, it simply had to tell the EU so and in every likelihood the Article 50 letter would be shredded, and all would be as before. Nothing I have seen or heard since suggests to me she was wrong in this.
The political dimension also has to be considered, but we have already heard from France and Germany that they would happily keep us in, if asked. So all it really needs is for the UK Government to ask.
That of course is the tricky bit. It might be good for the Country, but would it be good for the Government? And would the Govenment put the Nation's interests ahead of its own?
If we're going to undo Brexit, can we please undo a few other things and go back to Cameron and Osborne?
I'd raise a glass to that Richard, but sadly it ain't gonna happen.
Somewhere in Notting Hill David Cameron must be wistfully considering whether he should have stayed in the House of Commons a while longer.
Isn't it amazing? If he had just been able to put ego to one side and be a steady pair of hands over an issue that he had devolved to the general public anyway, we would have been so much better off.
He had a crap in a paper bag on the doorstep of No10, set it alight and shouted "Fire" at Theresa May
He had to go last June. But if he were in Parliament right now he'd be forming the next government.
He shouldn't have nailed his colours to the mast that's for sure, but I don't really see why he 100% had to go. The vote to Leave threw everything into chaos, why create more?
Because Conservative Leavers didn't trust him to deliver Brexit. If he hadn't resigned, he would have been ousted anyway by a peasants' revolt from the backbenches.
Surely there must be serious enquiries now as to whether Article 50 is revocable. The government is paralysed, time is running out and Liam's numerous trade deals aren't quite ready. Combined with Brexit, this parliamentary chaos could induce serious national harm of the type no one, not even most Remainers, seriously envisaged. Can't we ask for some kind of extension, like my English teacher once gave me for a Jane Austen essay?
There is an option to extend for 12 months but it requires the assent of all 27 other EU members. Not sure whether we'd get that, given the shambles our political masters have presided over thus far.
Shortly after the referendum my daughter copied me on a memo she wrote for the Partners in her law firm on the implications of Brexit. She commented in passing that in the then apparently unlikely event that the UK changed its mind, it simply had to tell the EU so and in every likelihood the Article 50 letter would be shredded, and all would be as before. Nothing I have seen or heard since suggests to me she was wrong in this.
The political dimension also has to be considered, but we have already heard from France and Germany that they would happily keep us in, if asked. So all it really needs is for the UK Government to ask.
That of course is the tricky bit. It might be good for the Country, but would it be good for the Government? And would the Govenment put the Nation's interests ahead of its own?
You tell me.
No Dave's deal means any return to the EU would be a difficult place to be, a resurgent UKIP (they will resurge anyway), and another referendum ahead, or a straight out manifesto commitment to leave by the Kippers.
I have no doubt that Dave's deal will come to be seen as far, far better a deal for the UK in the EU than contemporary judgements at the time.
Surely there must be serious enquiries now as to whether Article 50 is revocable. The government is paralysed, time is running out and Liam's numerous trade deals aren't quite ready. Combined with Brexit, this parliamentary chaos could induce serious national harm of the type no one, not even most Remainers, seriously envisaged. Can't we ask for some kind of extension, like my English teacher once gave me for a Jane Austen essay?
There is an option to extend for 12 months but it requires the assent of all 27 other EU members. Not sure whether we'd get that, given the shambles our political masters have presided over thus far.
Shortly after the referendum my daughter copied me on a memo she wrote for the Partners in her law firm on the implications of Brexit. She commented in passing that in the then apparently unlikely event that the UK changed its mind, it simply had to tell the EU so and in every likelihood the Article 50 letter would be shredded, and all would be as before. Nothing I have seen or heard since suggests to me she was wrong in this.
The political dimension also has to be considered, but we have already heard from France and Germany that they would happily keep us in, if asked. So all it really needs is for the UK Government to ask.
That of course is the tricky bit. It might be good for the Country, but would it be good for the Government? And would the Govenment put the Nation's interests ahead of its own?
You tell me.
Could only see the gov't falling in those circumstances as Tory Leavers set fire to the ship. Mind you you might be giving Labour ideas..
Surely there must be serious enquiries now as to whether Article 50 is revocable. The government is paralysed, time is running out and Liam's numerous trade deals aren't quite ready. Combined with Brexit, this parliamentary chaos could induce serious national harm of the type no one, not even most Remainers, seriously envisaged. Can't we ask for some kind of extension, like my English teacher once gave me for a Jane Austen essay?
Pride And Prejudice would make an excellent title for a book about Brexit.
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies may be more appropriate
Yup. I had a Proustian Moment. Early eighties. Fleapit in Leeds, which doubled up as a porn cinema o believe. Film was Zombie Flesheaters. The undead roam the land infecting everything and everybody. Meanwhile the government is in total collapse.
An unhelpful practice has developed of linking the provision of dementia care with its funding. This is simply an artefact of the current self-funding arrangement. We don't do this for other public services, e.g. we don't ask specifically how the fire service is funded, because we accept it is funded by general taxation. Dementia care is also a public service which is currently part-funded by general taxation, so why does every proposal to extend its coverage need to be justified by a specific tax to raise the money?
We are conflating two separate issues.
The first whether dementia care should be universal or means-tested. There is a debate to be had. My view is that one of the most important and effective businesses of government is risk-sharing. For example, it would be extremely expensive for each of us to defend our own homes from the risk of foreign invasion, so we socialise that defence. I view dementia as a similarly catastrophic risk which the public has very recently shown no appetite to assume. Therefore, I would share the risk through general taxation. But I accept this debate remains open.
The second issue is whether the young are paying too much of the total tax take than the old. Again, there is a debate to be had. Given that we tax primarily income, it is a strong proposition, especially when placed in the context of an economy which has seen rapid growth in the values of assets typically held by older, non-working people. If we agree the young should pay less and the old should pay more, the cleanest solution is to amend the general taxation system to tax earned income less and property wealth more.
It would make for a better politics if we delineated the issues more carefully.
If we're going to undo Brexit, can we please undo a few other things and go back to Cameron and Osborne?
I'd raise a glass to that Richard, but sadly it ain't gonna happen.
Somewhere in Notting Hill David Cameron must be wistfully considering whether he should have stayed in the House of Commons a while longer.
Isn't it amazing? If he had just been able to put ego to one side and be a steady pair of hands over an issue that he had devolved to the general public anyway, we would have been so much better off.
He had a crap in a paper bag on the doorstep of No10, set it alight and shouted "Fire" at Theresa May
He had to go last June. But if he were in Parliament right now he'd be forming the next government.
He shouldn't have nailed his colours to the mast that's for sure, but I don't really see why he 100% had to go. The vote to Leave threw everything into chaos, why create more?
Because Conservative Leavers didn't trust him to deliver Brexit. If he hadn't resigned, he would have been ousted anyway by a peasants' revolt from the backbenches.
Well it is history now, but he could quite legitimately have said that he gave the referendum he promised, and will deliver the verdict of the vote. How could they have argued? Nowhere did he say he would, or did anyone ask him to, resign as far as I can recall. It seems obvious it would pour fuel on the fire
Better to go into opposition now, let Corbyn be seen to fail in government (as must inevitably be the case for a party in such a weak position, never mind one led by someone with no experience of, or temperament for, government). Then bring Labour down at a time of the Tories' choosing.
That is a very high risk strategy.
It was also Arthur Balfour's strategy in 1905 with putting the Liberals into a minority Government (who then called for and got the Liberal Landslide of 1906) and Asquith's strategy in 1923 in supporting Labour to take the helm (leading to the near-extinction of the Liberal Party). In fact, having immediately thought of two examples where it backfired horrendously, I can't think of even one where it worked.
Baldwin became Tory leader in 1923 after Bonar Law had won a Tory majority in 1922 and resigned. Baldwin called an unnecessary snap election and unexpectedly lost the Tory majority,. Rather than go on, he allowed Labour to come to power even though it was only the second largest party. Labour screwed up for 9 months and then Baldwin won the 1924 election for the Tories with one of its biggest landslides.
I don't think he deliberately allowed them to come to power. IIRC he put forwards a King's Speech and was defeated on it, and it included the addendum "And that this House has no confidence in His Majesty's Government"
Indeed, it was more down to Asquith game-playing badly (again). All the same, the minority Labour government still fell and was still replaced by a substantial Con majority.
It did work out well for the Conservatives - but the party that played the game and whose leader used that strategy got smashed badly.
True, but only because others parked their tanks on the Liberals' lawn, and that the Liberals had already been reduced to becoming the third party (albeit that they were still a much bigger third party than any since). By contrast, the Tories only have meaningful competition in the centre at the moment and - as far as competition for the pragmatic vote based on competence and delivery goes - it's unlikely that the current shadow cabinet if given the moment in the sun at the head of departmental briefs, would shimmer across the board.
Mr. Punter, and what of the referendum, and Cameron's departure? Asking the people, all for nought?
I do respect those who say we shouldn't have a referendum [I would argue that for certain things, most obviously a change to the electoral system, they must happen], but having had one, to then ignore the result would surely cause huge political problems.
Surely there must be serious enquiries now as to whether Article 50 is revocable. The government is paralysed, time is running out and Liam's numerous trade deals aren't quite ready. Combined with Brexit, this parliamentary chaos could induce serious national harm of the type no one, not even most Remainers, seriously envisaged. Can't we ask for some kind of extension, like my English teacher once gave me for a Jane Austen essay?
There is an option to extend for 12 months but it requires the assent of all 27 other EU members. Not sure whether we'd get that, given the shambles our political masters have presided over thus far.
Shortly after the referendum my daughter copied me on a memo she wrote for the Partners in her law firm on the implications of Brexit. She commented in passing that in the then apparently unlikely event that the UK changed its mind, it simply had to tell the EU so and in every likelihood the Article 50 letter would be shredded, and all would be as before. Nothing I have seen or heard since suggests to me she was wrong in this.
The political dimension also has to be considered, but we have already heard from France and Germany that they would happily keep us in, if asked. So all it really needs is for the UK Government to ask.
That of course is the tricky bit. It might be good for the Country, but would it be good for the Government? And would the Govenment put the Nation's interests ahead of its own?
You tell me.
No Dave's deal means any return to the EU would be a difficult place to be, a resurgent UKIP (they will resurge anyway), and another referendum ahead, or a straight out manifesto commitment to leave by the Kippers.
I have no doubt that Dave's deal will come to be seen as far, far better a deal for the UK in the EU than contemporary judgements at the time.
It wouldn't entirely surprise me if PM Boris ends up trying to go for a 'Dave's deal' no Brexit only to find out it isn't on the table and to end up being the one to sign us up for greater integration.
Surely there must be serious enquiries now as to whether Article 50 is revocable. The government is paralysed, time is running out and Liam's numerous trade deals aren't quite ready. Combined with Brexit, this parliamentary chaos could induce serious national harm of the type no one, not even most Remainers, seriously envisaged. Can't we ask for some kind of extension, like my English teacher once gave me for a Jane Austen essay?
There is an option to extend for 12 months but it requires the assent of all 27 other EU members. Not sure whether we'd get that, given the shambles our political masters have presided over thus far.
Shortly after the referendum my daughter copied me on a memo she wrote for the Partners in her law firm on the implications of Brexit. She commented in passing that in the then apparently unlikely event that the UK changed its mind, it simply had to tell the EU so and in every likelihood the Article 50 letter would be shredded, and all would be as before. Nothing I have seen or heard since suggests to me she was wrong in this.
The political dimension also has to be considered, but we have already heard from France and Germany that they would happily keep us in, if asked. So all it really needs is for the UK Government to ask.
That of course is the tricky bit. It might be good for the Country, but would it be good for the Government? And would the Govenment put the Nation's interests ahead of its own?
You tell me.
As much as there is public mood to punish the establishment, there seems to be an establishment desire to punish the public for voting leave by leaving regardless of any move in opinion.
It should be noted that Verhofstadt has said if we do not Brexit, the UK will have 'none of the perks' it had.
The thought experiment I've posed a couple of times to Leavers is still live: as of today, would they prefer Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister of a Britain that is leaving the EU or would they now prefer David Cameron had remained as Prime Minister of a Britain that had remained in the EU?
From the responses I've got, enough Leavers consider Leaving more important than keeping Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street to make remaining in the EU a complete non-starter.
It all depends how many by elections the Tories lose. There werent that many by elections 2010-15 but compare with John Major's 1992-7 parliament when there were so mamy that his majority of 20 had turned to zero by 1996. If the Tories are as unlucky as Major and they lose 6 within 2 years, they would lose a vote of confidence by 2019.
It wasn't just by-elections though - there were defections to Labour and the "bastards" who lost the Tory whip.
True, but any backpedalling by May on hard brexit could see new "bastards". A majority of 6 might last for two or three years, but is unlikely to last for 5. Then there's illness and indisposal during confidence votes. Remember Jim Callaghan's government fell in 1979 because one of his MPs was held up in the traffic.
What about somebody like Bill Cash, Steve?
He's not exactly my specialist subject but my impression is that he's the kind of soul who would happily go to hell rather than take a step back on Brexit.
The thought experiment I've posed a couple of times to Leavers is still live: as of today, would they prefer Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister of a Britain that is leaving the EU or would they now prefer David Cameron had remained as Prime Minister of a Britain that had remained in the EU?
From the responses I've got, enough Leavers consider Leaving more important than keeping Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street to make remaining in the EU a complete non-starter.
That's what they voted for. Corbyn is a consequence of Brexit.
You are really asking if they have Bregret. Not so far, apparently
The thought experiment I've posed a couple of times to Leavers is still live: as of today, would they prefer Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister of a Britain that is leaving the EU or would they now prefer David Cameron had remained as Prime Minister of a Britain that had remained in the EU?
From the responses I've got, enough Leavers consider Leaving more important than keeping Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street to make remaining in the EU a complete non-starter.
I can see several Tory, Remainers and Leavers, who could protest at the actions of the government on Brexit and quit the whip and sit as Independents.
That would not be the end of the world, I'm sure they would vote with the government on all non Brexit issues. Someone like Wollaston defecting to the Lib Dems would be a bigger problem.
Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston could both be defection risks.
Clarke, Soubry, Morgan etc. never would.
I was thinking the same, but also included Soubry. Why do you think she isn't a defection risk to the LDs? She has been very vocal recently, her views on Brexit chime and her seat is at very high risk indeed so hasn't a lot to lose.
But surely defection to the LDs is very likely to mean leaving Parliament at the next election for any of them?
Clarke is leaving anyway, but I agree he simply wouldn't contemplate such a thing. Soubry is of an age where it may or may not be her final term but, if she did want to go again surely she'd have no chance with a party that lost their deposit in her seat.
Wollaston and Allen would have an outside chance of clinging on under a new banner (Wollaston has already squeezed the Lib Dems and a fair amount of her broad support base is yellow leaning in a somewhat boho, environmentalist area, and Allen is in a seat where the Lib Dems are a strong third, and have councillors and a strong network). But it's essentially close to career suicide.
Just a thought - but if Jo Swinson becomes leader of the Lib Dems, then only Labour and Sinn Fein, of all Parties in the Commons, will not have female leaders.
Conservatives - Theresa May SNP - Nicola Sturgeon Lib Dems - Jo Swinson (is this happens) DUP - Arlene Foster Plaid Cymru - Leanne Wood Greens - Caroline Lucas ... even the Independent is female (Sylvia Hermon)
If the rumour about the Scottish Conservatives breaking away to become their own parliamentary group, it would be even more underlined...
In Scotland, the Cons, Labour, Greens and UKIP? leaders are all LGBT, as is the Scottish Sec. SNP and LDs AFAIK aren't. Which is kind of remarkable, not least because nobody bothers.
I can see several Tory, Remainers and Leavers, who could protest at the actions of the government on Brexit and quit the whip and sit as Independents.
That would not be the end of the world, I'm sure they would vote with the government on all non Brexit issues. Someone like Wollaston defecting to the Lib Dems would be a bigger problem.
Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston could both be defection risks.
Clarke, Soubry, Morgan etc. never would.
I was thinking the same, but also included Soubry. Why do you think she isn't a defection risk to the LDs? She has been very vocal recently, her views on Brexit chime and her seat is at very high risk indeed so hasn't a lot to lose.
Because she represents a seat where the LDs have lost their deposit twice in a row?
She has far too much integrity to 'do a Woodward' and opportunities to do so in her new party would be severely restricted anyway.
Can I just say how delighted I am that the England cricket team is transporting us to a simpler time before 9/11 and the war on terror. It's like just for today a corner of Cardiff is forever 1995.
An unhelpful practice has developed of linking the provision of dementia care with its funding. This is simply an artefact of the current self-funding arrangement. We don't do this for other public services, e.g. we don't ask specifically how the fire service is funded, because we accept it is funded by general taxation. Dementia care is also a public service which is currently part-funded by general taxation, so why does every proposal to extend its coverage need to be justified by a specific tax to raise the money?
We are conflating two separate issues.
The first whether dementia care should be universal or means-tested. There is a debate to be had. My view is that one of the most important and effective businesses of government is risk-sharing. For example, it would be extremely expensive for each of us to defend our own homes from the risk of foreign invasion, so we socialise that defence. I view dementia as a similarly catastrophic risk which the public has very recently shown no appetite to assume. Therefore, I would share the risk through general taxation. But I accept this debate remains open.
The second issue is whether the young are paying too much of the total tax take than the old. Again, there is a debate to be had. Given that we tax primarily income, it is a strong proposition, especially when placed in the context of an economy which has seen rapid growth in the values of assets typically held by older, non-working people. If we agree the young should pay less and the old should pay more, the cleanest solution is to amend the general taxation system to tax earned income less and property wealth more.
It would make for a better politics if we delineated the issues more carefully.
You're making a strong case for Labour today, must say. The addition of dementia into general care definitely has its good points, though it is expensive. General wealth taxation might be a good way to collectivise the costs without unduly stinging the young and poor.
Can I just say how delighted I am that the England cricket team is transporting us to a simpler time before 9/11 and the war on terror. It's like just for today a corner of Cardiff is forever 1995.
We need to take away international cricket from Cardiff
The thought experiment I've posed a couple of times to Leavers is still live: as of today, would they prefer Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister of a Britain that is leaving the EU or would they now prefer David Cameron had remained as Prime Minister of a Britain that had remained in the EU?
From the responses I've got, enough Leavers consider Leaving more important than keeping Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street to make remaining in the EU a complete non-starter.
Remaining also reanimates the corpse of UKIP so, even if Leavers felt or were persuaded to feel less passionately about it, plenty of Tory Leavers AND Remainers would totally dismiss the notion that Remaining makes a Corbyn win less likely.
The thought experiment I've posed a couple of times to Leavers is still live: as of today, would they prefer Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister of a Britain that is leaving the EU or would they now prefer David Cameron had remained as Prime Minister of a Britain that had remained in the EU?
From the responses I've got, enough Leavers consider Leaving more important than keeping Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street to make remaining in the EU a complete non-starter.
"is leaving" or "will leave"?
As I already said, Corbyn is for a limited time and will enact the policies he has been elected for by the people. As and when they decide they don't like those policies anymore then they will vote him out. No matter what, they get that choice at least every 5 years. That choice does not exist with the EU.
The thought experiment I've posed a couple of times to Leavers is still live: as of today, would they prefer Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister of a Britain that is leaving the EU or would they now prefer David Cameron had remained as Prime Minister of a Britain that had remained in the EU?
From the responses I've got, enough Leavers consider Leaving more important than keeping Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street to make remaining in the EU a complete non-starter.
"is leaving" or "will leave"?
As I already said, Corbyn is for a limited time and will enact the policies he has been elected for by the people. As and when they decide they don't like those policies anymore then they will vote him out. No matter what, they get that choice at least every 5 years. That choice does not exist with the EU.
Yes I would rather have PM Corbyn/outside the EU all day long, but I was wondering if there was a trap in the question whereby we get Corbyn and don't leave.
An unhelpful practice has developed of linking the provision of dementia care with its funding. This is simply an artefact of the current self-funding arrangement. We don't do this for other public services, e.g. we don't ask specifically how the fire service is funded, because we accept it is funded by general taxation. Dementia care is also a public service which is currently part-funded by general taxation, so why does every proposal to extend its coverage need to be justified by a specific tax to raise the money?
We are conflating two separate issues.
The first whether dementia care should be universal or means-tested. There is a debate to be had. My view is that one of the most important and effective businesses of government is risk-sharing. For example, it would be extremely expensive for each of us to defend our own homes from the risk of foreign invasion, so we socialise that defence. I view dementia as a similarly catastrophic risk which the public has very recently shown no appetite to assume. Therefore, I would share the risk through general taxation. But I accept this debate remains open.
The second issue is whether the young are paying too much of the total tax take than the old. Again, there is a debate to be had. Given that we tax primarily income, it is a strong proposition, especially when placed in the context of an economy which has seen rapid growth in the values of assets typically held by older, non-working people. If we agree the young should pay less and the old should pay more, the cleanest solution is to amend the general taxation system to tax earned income less and property wealth more.
It would make for a better politics if we delineated the issues more carefully.
You're making a strong case for Labour today, must say. The addition of dementia into general care definitely has its good points, though it is expensive. General wealth taxation might be a good way to collectivise the costs without unduly stinging the young and poor.
Thank you. It is a great pity that Osborne killed Burnham's estate levy proposal in 2010. This is the closest either party has come to a risk-sharing solution. However, even that suffered from the conflation of service and funding I have described. Far cleaner to decide where we agree government can intervene effectively and then to decide how to raise the funds in an equitable manner.
I would add that moving "social" care into the government's hands could allow for some very large and non-euphemistic efficiency savings from the ability to join it up with medical care.
I can see several Tory, Remainers and Leavers, who could protest at the actions of the government on Brexit and quit the whip and sit as Independents.
That would not be the end of the world, I'm sure they would vote with the government on all non Brexit issues. Someone like Wollaston defecting to the Lib Dems would be a bigger problem.
Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston could both be defection risks.
Clarke, Soubry, Morgan etc. never would.
I was thinking the same, but also included Soubry. Why do you think she isn't a defection risk to the LDs? She has been very vocal recently, her views on Brexit chime and her seat is at very high risk indeed so hasn't a lot to lose.
Because she represents a seat where the LDs have lost their deposit twice in a row?
She has far too much integrity to 'do a Woodward' and opportunities to do so in her new party would be severely restricted anyway.
I also think it unlikely, but "doing a Woodward" is an unfair description as Woodward defected to a governing party for nakedly careerist reasons. A Tory defector (whether to the LDs on one side or UKIP on the other) would be doing so to further a cause which many disagree with, but it could hardly be described as nakedly self-serving in any sensible way.
Soubry is also 60, so it's a little unclear whether or not the prospects of reelection in 2022 are a factor for her. They may or may not be.
I can see several Tory, Remainers and Leavers, who could protest at the actions of the government on Brexit and quit the whip and sit as Independents.
That would not be the end of the world, I'm sure they would vote with the government on all non Brexit issues. Someone like Wollaston defecting to the Lib Dems would be a bigger problem.
Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston could both be defection risks.
Clarke, Soubry, Morgan etc. never would.
I was thinking the same, but also included Soubry. Why do you think she isn't a defection risk to the LDs? She has been very vocal recently, her views on Brexit chime and her seat is at very high risk indeed so hasn't a lot to lose.
But surely defection to the LDs is very likely to mean leaving Parliament at the next election for any of them?
Clarke is leaving anyway, but I agree he simply wouldn't contemplate such a thing. Soubry is of an age where it may or may not be her final term but, if she did want to go again surely she'd have no chance with a party that lost their deposit in her seat.
Wollaston and Allen would have an outside chance of clinging on under a new banner (Wollaston has already squeezed the Lib Dems and a fair amount of her broad support base is yellow leaning in a somewhat boho, environmentalist area, and Allen is in a seat where the Lib Dems are a strong third, and have councillors and a strong network). But it's essentially close to career suicide.
I agree re Ken Clarke - just wouldn't.
I don't think either Wollaston or Allen would be outside chances. I am assuming that the Tories will be getting themselves in a real pickle by the next election and of course events may change that. Wollaston in particular I think would hold easily as a LD. I think Allen would have a good chance.
Soubry would have little chance, but she doesn't seem to show that she cares currently. Quite happy to upset the Tory party and the Tories only have to go down a little or Labour up a little and she is out anyway. What is there to lose?
The thought experiment I've posed a couple of times to Leavers is still live: as of today, would they prefer Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister of a Britain that is leaving the EU or would they now prefer David Cameron had remained as Prime Minister of a Britain that had remained in the EU?
From the responses I've got, enough Leavers consider Leaving more important than keeping Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street to make remaining in the EU a complete non-starter.
That's what they voted for. Corbyn is a consequence of Brexit.
You are really asking if they have Bregret. Not so far, apparently
Corbyn is indeed a consequence of Brexit, as was the Election. They may have been unintended consequences, but they were certainly consequences.
I am sure though that somebody will be along in a minute to tell us 'worth it'.
I can see several Tory, Remainers and Leavers, who could protest at the actions of the government on Brexit and quit the whip and sit as Independents.
That would not be the end of the world, I'm sure they would vote with the government on all non Brexit issues. Someone like Wollaston defecting to the Lib Dems would be a bigger problem.
Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston could both be defection risks.
Clarke, Soubry, Morgan etc. never would.
I was thinking the same, but also included Soubry. Why do you think she isn't a defection risk to the LDs? She has been very vocal recently, her views on Brexit chime and her seat is at very high risk indeed so hasn't a lot to lose.
Because she represents a seat where the LDs have lost their deposit twice in a row?
She has far too much integrity to 'do a Woodward' and opportunities to do so in her new party would be severely restricted anyway.
I appreciate she will lose, but does she care? Unless there is a turnaround in Tory fortunes she is gone anyway.
The Nation is going to hell in a handcart and people are worried about poxy foxes?!! Ffs.
I'm telling you now, it definitely cost the Tories votes.
It was her first big campaign misstep and a sign of things to come.
Someone here - I forget who - quipped a few months ago that Cameron had deTOXified the Tories, and May had deTOFFified them. It was clearly a step towards retoffification.
Also, PTP says, "the Nation is going to hell in a handcart and people are worried about poxy foxes". But isn't it possibly the reverse? People's concern about the policy, as well as the weird message it sent about the May Tory brand, was that it looked as if May was worried about making Parliamentary time to revisit an old, niche issue... i.e. a lot of them were asking "why is MAY worried about poxy foxes when the nation faces REAL issues?"
The thought experiment I've posed a couple of times to Leavers is still live: as of today, would they prefer Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister of a Britain that is leaving the EU or would they now prefer David Cameron had remained as Prime Minister of a Britain that had remained in the EU?
From the responses I've got, enough Leavers consider Leaving more important than keeping Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street to make remaining in the EU a complete non-starter.
That's what they voted for. Corbyn is a consequence of Brexit.
You are really asking if they have Bregret. Not so far, apparently
Corbyn is indeed a consequence of Brexit, as was the Election. They may have been unintended consequences, but they were certainly consequences.
I am sure though that somebody will be along in a minute to tell us 'worth it'.
Corbyn and Brexit were both consequences of the failure of the political and economic establishments.
I can see several Tory, Remainers and Leavers, who could protest at the actions of the government on Brexit and quit the whip and sit as Independents.
That would not be the end of the world, I'm sure they would vote with the government on all non Brexit issues. Someone like Wollaston defecting to the Lib Dems would be a bigger problem.
Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston could both be defection risks.
Clarke, Soubry, Morgan etc. never would.
I was thinking the same, but also included Soubry. Why do you think she isn't a defection risk to the LDs? She has been very vocal recently, her views on Brexit chime and her seat is at very high risk indeed so hasn't a lot to lose.
But surely defection to the LDs is very likely to mean leaving Parliament at the next election for any of them?
Clarke is leaving anyway, but I agree he simply wouldn't contemplate such a thing. Soubry is of an age where it may or may not be her final term but, if she did want to go again surely she'd have no chance with a party that lost their deposit in her seat.
Wollaston and Allen would have an outside chance of clinging on under a new banner (Wollaston has already squeezed the Lib Dems and a fair amount of her broad support base is yellow leaning in a somewhat boho, environmentalist area, and Allen is in a seat where the Lib Dems are a strong third, and have councillors and a strong network). But it's essentially close to career suicide.
If the party you're in does something that you fundamentally disagree with, then you may consider defecting. See Douglas Carswell and Dick Taverne for example.
I can see several Tory, Remainers and Leavers, who could protest at the actions of the government on Brexit and quit the whip and sit as Independents.
That would not be the end of the world, I'm sure they would vote with the government on all non Brexit issues. Someone like Wollaston defecting to the Lib Dems would be a bigger problem.
Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston could both be defection risks.
Clarke, Soubry, Morgan etc. never would.
I was thinking the same, but also included Soubry. Why do you think she isn't a defection risk to the LDs? She has been very vocal recently, her views on Brexit chime and her seat is at very high risk indeed so hasn't a lot to lose.
But surely defection to the LDs is very likely to mean leaving Parliament at the next election for any of them?
Clarke is leaving anyway, but I agree he simply wouldn't contemplate such a thing. Soubry is of an age where it may or may not be her final term but, if she did want to go again surely she'd have no chance with a party that lost their deposit in her seat.
Wollaston and Allen would have an outside chance of clinging on under a new banner (Wollaston has already squeezed the Lib Dems and a fair amount of her broad support base is yellow leaning in a somewhat boho, environmentalist area, and Allen is in a seat where the Lib Dems are a strong third, and have councillors and a strong network). But it's essentially close to career suicide.
If the party you're in does something that you fundamentally disagree with, then you may consider defecting. See Douglas Carswell and Dick Taverne for example.
... also if the Tories slump in the opinion polls and the LibDems recover, things might look different.
Comments
Die-hard remainers are getting over-excited.
I agree with Mr. Meeks. But I'd add another point.
Politics involves being governed by those who persuade us through campaigning, but campaigning and governing are two totally different skills. One is sales, one is management. Or, to use a mildly historical comparison, one is Machiavelli's The Prince (in which he advocates a strongman taking control by ruthless pragmatism) and one is his Discourses on Livy (in which he extols the virtues of a republican constitution, as Rome once had).
Another campaigning period, shortly after the last, plays to Corbyn's strength. A period of governing/opposing plays to his weakness.
Conservatives - Theresa May
SNP - Nicola Sturgeon
Lib Dems - Jo Swinson (is this happens)
DUP - Arlene Foster
Plaid Cymru - Leanne Wood
Greens - Caroline Lucas
... even the Independent is female (Sylvia Hermon)
If the rumour about the Scottish Conservatives breaking away to become their own parliamentary group, it would be even more underlined...
Note to Ms Apocalypse: This is a joke
I would go for a most radical approach. Make the BREXIT department an open department with members of all parties. Tory cabinet minister, Labour MoS and other ministers too - Put simply a Coalition for BRIXIT ....
Applies to a Cons govt also but I think the adage better a bird in the hand would apply here.
However, if it happened, it would please my sensibilities for Yvette Cooper to become Labour leader.
Member B: I don't want membership of the single market
Repeat ad infinitum..
I'm quite sure that wealthier pensioners would like to be subsidised by the rest of us. I'm not at all sure why they should be if they have no interest in insuring against the risk that they run.
If we give multiple parties a stake in the issue we might just, just make some progress.
They are displaying a disgraceful lack of concern.
The EU is the thing that matters most to most Labour MPs. They will think like ardent Remainers, believe public opinion will turn, and over 95% of them absolutely hate Brexit.
Instead he had a crap in a paper bag on the doorstep of No10, set it alight and shouted "Fire" at Theresa May
it's good to remember that Debbie Abrahams, Barbara Keeley, Kate Osamor, Andy McDonald, Christina Rees, Peter Dowd, Sue Hayman are the in the shadow cabinet.
The political dimension also has to be considered, but we have already heard from France and Germany that they would happily keep us in, if asked. So all it really needs is for the UK Government to ask.
That of course is the tricky bit. It might be good for the Country, but would it be good for the Government? And would the Govenment put the Nation's interests ahead of its own?
You tell me.
No!
I have no doubt that Dave's deal will come to be seen as far, far better a deal for the UK in the EU than contemporary judgements at the time.
No surrender
No surrender
No surrender
To the DUP!
We are conflating two separate issues.
The first whether dementia care should be universal or means-tested. There is a debate to be had. My view is that one of the most important and effective businesses of government is risk-sharing. For example, it would be extremely expensive for each of us to defend our own homes from the risk of foreign invasion, so we socialise that defence. I view dementia as a similarly catastrophic risk which the public has very recently shown no appetite to assume. Therefore, I would share the risk through general taxation. But I accept this debate remains open.
The second issue is whether the young are paying too much of the total tax take than the old. Again, there is a debate to be had. Given that we tax primarily income, it is a strong proposition, especially when placed in the context of an economy which has seen rapid growth in the values of assets typically held by older, non-working people. If we agree the young should pay less and the old should pay more, the cleanest solution is to amend the general taxation system to tax earned income less and property wealth more.
It would make for a better politics if we delineated the issues more carefully.
I do respect those who say we shouldn't have a referendum [I would argue that for certain things, most obviously a change to the electoral system, they must happen], but having had one, to then ignore the result would surely cause huge political problems.
It should be noted that Verhofstadt has said if we do not Brexit, the UK will have 'none of the perks' it had.
From the responses I've got, enough Leavers consider Leaving more important than keeping Jeremy Corbyn out of Downing Street to make remaining in the EU a complete non-starter.
He's not exactly my specialist subject but my impression is that he's the kind of soul who would happily go to hell rather than take a step back on Brexit.
You are really asking if they have Bregret. Not so far, apparently
Clarke is leaving anyway, but I agree he simply wouldn't contemplate such a thing. Soubry is of an age where it may or may not be her final term but, if she did want to go again surely she'd have no chance with a party that lost their deposit in her seat.
Wollaston and Allen would have an outside chance of clinging on under a new banner (Wollaston has already squeezed the Lib Dems and a fair amount of her broad support base is yellow leaning in a somewhat boho, environmentalist area, and Allen is in a seat where the Lib Dems are a strong third, and have councillors and a strong network). But it's essentially close to career suicide.
About 20 seconds in...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9uHhLe6WE0
Because she represents a seat where the LDs have lost their deposit twice in a row?
She has far too much integrity to 'do a Woodward' and opportunities to do so in her new party would be severely restricted anyway.
If Cameron were still in post, and we were not leaving, Corbyn would just be another useless LOTO
General wealth taxation might be a good way to collectivise the costs without unduly stinging the young and poor.
Neither of those things are going to happen...
I would add that moving "social" care into the government's hands could allow for some very large and non-euphemistic efficiency savings from the ability to join it up with medical care.
Soubry is also 60, so it's a little unclear whether or not the prospects of reelection in 2022 are a factor for her. They may or may not be.
I don't think either Wollaston or Allen would be outside chances. I am assuming that the Tories will be getting themselves in a real pickle by the next election and of course events may change that. Wollaston in particular I think would hold easily as a LD. I think Allen would have a good chance.
Soubry would have little chance, but she doesn't seem to show that she cares currently. Quite happy to upset the Tory party and the Tories only have to go down a little or Labour up a little and she is out anyway. What is there to lose?
I am sure though that somebody will be along in a minute to tell us 'worth it'.
Someone here - I forget who - quipped a few months ago that Cameron had deTOXified the Tories, and May had deTOFFified them. It was clearly a step towards retoffification.
Also, PTP says, "the Nation is going to hell in a handcart and people are worried about poxy foxes". But isn't it possibly the reverse? People's concern about the policy, as well as the weird message it sent about the May Tory brand, was that it looked as if May was worried about making Parliamentary time to revisit an old, niche issue... i.e. a lot of them were asking "why is MAY worried about poxy foxes when the nation faces REAL issues?"
Abortion: NI women not entitled to NHS terminations in England
Another can of petrol onto the current bonfire.