Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If LAB shifts a notch on Brexit and backs a CON rebel Commons
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If LAB shifts a notch on Brexit and backs a CON rebel Commons move TMay could be in trouble
TMay at risk of Commons defeat as LAB shifts on Brexit – dangerous times for the PM who lost the CON majority at GE17https://t.co/R7CfTtJKO3
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
F1: well, the McLaren reveal was pencilled in for today but it seems to have already happened. The colour scheme is very "acceptable in the 80s":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43162270
I rather like it.
On-topic: sounds like a recipe for trench warfare in politics for decades.
If Corbyn suppers BREXIT Lab loses the next GE IMO
Yep, that really needs a great combo of cajones and stupid.
And would a new leader have to call a GE?
Both parties are coalitions of voters. The arithmetic for both is awful. My view is May's polling numbers are being held up by those terrified of a Corbyn government (I'm not over-bothered by Jezza, it's Abbot, McDonnell and Milne who give me the dry heaves).
If Labour were to row back a bit on their loopy economic policies in order to soothe the huddled masses and came out for some form of BINO, the Tories could well be in real trouble.
All the polling suggests an actual election fought on Brexit where Corbz is on the wrong side of the argument and Mrs May gets her majority....
But if the chassis is as good as last year and Renault is reasonable, good results should tempt some back.
Mr. M, and yet, both major parties have benefited from the end of UKIP as an electoral force. That would the Conservatives as the only party of Leave with Remain voters having to either buy into Corbyn or throw their vote to the Lib Dems or SNP.
It'd be like the SNP's strength in 2010 as the only party wanting to leave the UK whilst the unionist vote was split three ways (it wouldn't be quite as stark but similar).
The FTPA complicates things.
The government would have to lose an explicit vote of no confidence and Corbyn would have 14 days to try and form a government.
If so May cannot have done any more
Then a handful of backbench MPs decide to take it upon themselves to nuke the compromise, undermine their own PM and tear open the wound. It's like they want to sabotage the Tories at the next election and let Corbyn in.
Either TM caves, or she is replaced by Hunt/Rudd/someone keen to stay in Customs Union.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-43165427
I can see why Leavers were so tumescent about it.
They don't have the numbers....
If it were BINO, in future we'd put transitional controls on countries like Serbia, and European economies are now starting to grow properly. While the Brexit vote has certainly put some off coming here (and pushed others to leave), there are also fewer drivers for EU immigration.
May's shield in this case would be that it would have been parliament that inflicted the defeat on her and that a new leader would still be in the same position unless they went back to the country (which no-one really wants to do).
I remember on the morning of June 24th 2016 he was demanding article 50 be triggered immediately.
* noteworthy that you have to specify which group of Tory rebels you are referring to.
Before the FTPA the PM did not automatically resign following loss of a confidence vote. The PM usually called an election and remained as PM until after the election (see, for example, Callaghan in 1979). They only resigned if they lost the election. Nothing in the FTPA changes that. There is no requirement for the PM to resign after losing a confidence vote. So my view is that, if May loses a confidence vote, she has 14 days to turn it around. If she cannot do so there is an election. Corbyn only gets a chance to form a government if he wins that election.
The main reason why May has not been replaced - apart from the disruption it would do to the Brexit process itself - is because MPs can't be sure that they'd get the sort of leader they'd like to replace her. However, while a centrist like Hunt could well win, that's almost certainly only the case if the election wasn't triggered by a Brexit falling out, where tempers are lower and where concentration is on other matters.
Were May to be critically wounded politically by a ex-Remain action, Brexit would be the prism all decisions would be viewed through and only true believers need apply.
But the simple maths is that whereas the ERG have the numbers to force a No Confidence vote (a point about the letter this last week that hasn't been sufficiently emphasised), the Continuity Remain wing doesn't, by a long way.
The second is more complicated. If a motion of no confidence is passed or there is a failed vote of confidence, there is a 14-day period in which to pass an act of confidence in a new government. If no such vote is passed, a new election must be held, probably a mere 17 working days later.
So it gives Corbyn the opportunity to try and form a government in those 14 days.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/not-so-fixed-term-parliaments-act
The challenge is to find a line that everyone can sign up to which has some prospect of being acceptable to the EU. That will be genuinely difficult. The stakes are very high for May and the Tories. Any rebels need to think carefully about the consequences of their actions.
While it's improbable given current numbers, attitudes and processes that it'd happen like this, if it became clear that an alternative government was available to the one that had been No Confidenced, then the head of it could expect an invite to the Palace whether or not the PM wanted to go to the country or not.
In any case, May won't lose a confidence vote unless she really upsets the DUP.
"a Prime Minister defeated on a no-confidence motion might refuse to resign, arguing that s/he cannot recommend a successor. This could be done even if an alternative candidate was in fact capable of winning a confidence vote."
If the Conservatives were defeated on a vote of confidence (a Spartan If if ever I saw one), I expect Jeremy Corbyn could and would form a minority government without an election, as the Conservatives abstained on votes of confidence. The Conservatives would almost certainly be hopelessly split for that to have happened, would not want a general election and would need time to sort themselves out.
There is no legal requirement for a PM (or any other minister) to resign on a change of government. Their appointment expires when a new appointment is made.
(This is nothing new and is the reason for the Royal Reserve Power to appoint and dismiss Prime Ministers: if a PM lost a general election, they could theoretically refuse to resign, even if defeated in the House. Indeed, under the FTPA, if a defeated PM couldn't be removed after losing a confidence vote, it'd be a short cut to an immediate second election before the winning party had chance to govern).
MANAFORT THE LAW. THE LAW WON.
UNITED STATES: Robert Mueller has brought further charges against Donald Trump's former campaign chief Paul Manafort. Manafort is accused of using fraudulently obtained loans and tax cheating tricks.
Soubry: "Softer, softer!"
How can May possibly keep all of her MPs on side?
If only she had called a Brexit election and won a 100-seat majority, could could ignore the two fringes. As it is, she's a bit stuck.
I think the Soubreyites and Labour have it in their hands to determine the sort of Brexit deal we aim for, since it has to be put to a Meaningful Vote in parliament.
The Moggites can threaten to bring down the PM, but they are a minority in parliament. They can't determine the form of Brexit and get it passed by the Commons.
It's why the second referendum argument has always been detrimental to the national interest, because it provides the opportunity and motive for both the EU and the most pro-EU of UK politicians to get the worst deal for the UK in a bid to reverse the referendum result.
To take a clearer historical parallel, suppose Blair lost first the Iraq War vote and then, doubling down, a Confidence vote he tied to his Iraq policy, and that the FTPA had been in operation. In those circumstances, it's almost certain that the cabinet and PLP would have rapidly nominated Brown to form a new government and a Confidence vote would have been carried comfortably.
Slightly melodramatic from OGH this morning - I suspect we are still a fair way from a change of Government as distinct from a change of Conservative Party leader.
I imagine Soubry's motion is causing both leaderships some headache as both May and Corbyn are seeking to hold together potentially fractious coalitions on the A50 issue.
I also imagine the intention is to smoke out both leaderships and commit them to actual policy positions rather than vague obfuscations and fence sitting. That won't be pleasant for either May or Corbyn.
https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/966607997546921984
Now, what he promises, what they vote for, and what he delivers would make for an interesting venn diagram, of course.
A good article from Gisela Stuart on how the EU negotiates, suggesting that their plan is to stop us actually leaving by offering either a crap deal or an extension to the “transition” period such that it lasts for decades.
http://brexitcentral.com/government-must-not-allow-uk-drift-permanent-eu-purgatory/
In general MPs on both sides in marginals are safer from deselection than MPs in safe seats, both because the troops have fought hand-to-hand alongside them in the front line, and because the seat is likely to be held by an insurgent, even if the evicted MP tries to stand as an independent.
It's also why he can't give concessions and allow us to cherry-pick. What one gets (and we're still a member), they all will want.
Their preferred solution is for us to crawl back. We can then be an example to back-sliders. The next best option is BINO - no damage done there - 'Ze English, how silly they are, and so easy to fool'.
So Barnier's best plan to delay as much as possible, make it as bureaucratic as possible, and sit back while the UK get blamed by all sides for the delay. Who can blame him for those tactics? It's what I would do in that situation.
What would he dislike most? If the UK called his bluff. OK, if no deal, so be it. May probably won't do it for the obvious political damage. Jezza is sitting tight, but hoping to ramp up the pressure when it's safe to do so.
This has caused a serious split in the country. The ignored have spoken, and a few of the losers are so used to having their own way, they can't comprehend their failure. They'd rather the UK stuttered and failed than it succeed in this project. That's the most disappointing aspect.
I think it will pass.
As the various Brexit related bills come through the HOC and HOL over the coming months I can see amendments being passed that move us closer and closer to BINO.
Mrs May will survive any no confidence vote by Tory MPs. The government will survive any no-confidence vote in parliament. The Tories will not vote for an early election.
Mrs May will tell the apoplectic Moggites "Sorry - we just don't have the numbers" while quietly smiling to herself. It seems quite straightforward to me.
About 1,250,000 results (0.47 seconds)
Davis: "We'd like a FTA with the EU".
Barnier: "OK. We'll need to know your priorities, identify whether we can reconcile them with EU policies and law, develop agreements where that can be done, then set up joint legal drafting committees and so on."
Davis: "That sounds like it might take quite a long time."
Barnier: "Years."
Davis: "Can we run a faster process?"
Barnier: "What sort of deadline were you thinking of?"
Davis: "Tea-time."
Barnier (raises eyebrow, reaches under desk): "Here's a 2500-page draft incorporating all the UK's current FTA obligations and working practices with the EU into a treaty."
Davis: "Where do I sign?"
A fascinating 'Bottom Line' on Radio 4 last night with Evan Davis. Talking about share ownership of British companies. 54% of all shares in publicly listed UK companies are now owned by foreign investors - the US and China being the big investors these days.
UK Pension funds now hold only 3% of publicly owned shares. This is a phenomenal drop over the last decade.
UK Insurance companies hold 5% of publicly owned shares.
Unit Trusts hold 10%.
There has been a huge transformation in share ownership over the last couple of decades.
Exactly what I’ve been saying.....the Parliamentary arithmetic means the only Brexit capable of being passed is one in name early.....the Moggwits can bluster all they like....
The only way to their hard Brexit wet dream is through a second vote which they would lose. So, there is no way to a hard Brexit.
It would all be funny if it wasn’t so fucking chaotic whilst turning the UK into the international laughing stock, on par with the US and only a notch higher than North Korea. That said, in a week or so Italy is going to commit hari kari...with yes....the return of Berlusconi, and this time he is more idiotic than ever. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Classy
Because how could the Conservatives refuse another election when they were unwilling to serve despite winning most seats in the prior one?
Liam Fox
Letting Corbyn rule for a short period as a minority would be a campaign gift for him.
The UK sold its assets to fund its excessive current consumption.
The Belgium PM inviting PM's from 12 other EU countries to a private meeting last night and Junckers and Tusk were specifically not invited to attend