I don't get why he's stood down as a minister but not as an MP. You tend to resign as a minister (But not an MP) when you have a disagreement with Gov't policy/mislead the house or some such. This is Brooks Newmark Mk II but we're far too far from a general election to make the whole 'I'll stand down at the next election' look vaguely credible for the Tories.
It seems to me that the raft of Remain supporters arguing that the Chequers Deal is abysmal may not be making that point just because they believe that, but because (a) they want to facilitate a 'no option but a second referendum' scenario and (b) muddy the waters with the public assuming that the Chequers deal is awful. Why? Because they will believe that a 3-way referendum results in remain winning. You split the Leave vote between two options and a potentially complex tiered voting scheme and you join in with Mogg supporters in making May's proposals sound so awful you would be deemed crazy to support them as a voter. No idea what they would think would happen if the UK voted Remain - best of three? Potentially illustrates the Mogg supporters may find they don't get any Brexit at all.
On topic, I know some MPs are nuts and they may be right that their voters are going to punish them for *not* dousing the economy with petrol and setting it on fire, but the voters will definitely be seriously miffed if they *do* do this, with serious long-term efffects on their reputation for economic competence.
So if they're going to do in TMay, they need to be reasonably confident that someone else will be able to make a deal, either a different one or the same one but delivered with more style and grace. The problem with this is that once started, the process is unpredictable, so although you could imagine a better outcome, they have a very serious downside risk of a really terrible one.
I think the upshot is that TMay stays until a deal is signed. After that they're free to ditch her and elect one of her opponents who can channel the righteous anger of the base without the risk that it will actually be turned into policy. If she's replaced before then, it really needs to be with a Michael-Howard-style consensus stitch-up, but it's hard to see them getting there with the party as divided as it is.
You'd think that Musk'd know that t'Internet never forgets.
In all seriousness, he should do more than just delete them. At the very least an apology, and a sizeable sum to rescue charities that actually know what they're doing might be in order ...
O/T McVey is in too much trouble. Telling porkies in the House is decidedly naughty. Doing it once, twice, possibly could be accepted as the usual cut and thrust of politics, to do it a third time, be rebuked by a public letter from the NAO and then after being dragged back to the chamber, gives a half hearted apology. I watched some of the debate on the opposition motion to cut her wages by 1 month. All I got from the government benches was an unwilling and unhappy defence of someone who had been caught bang to rights, and, quite simply should have done the honourable thing, and resigned - not just from the cabinet. TMay should have demanded an immediate resignation, but....
Does she specify whether she means an In/Out referendum or Deal/No Deal referendum?
In her article Ms Greening says that it will be “unacceptable” for MPs to impose a compromise on the electorate.
The former minister argues that the second referendum should not be a “divisive, binary choice”, proposing that voters are presented with three choices: the prime minister’s negotiated deal; staying in the EU; or a clean break. The voting system should involve first and second preference votes, she says.
Ms Greening has support of other Remain-backing Tories including Amber Rudd, the former home secretary. Dominic Grieve, the former attorney-general, is expected to lend qualified backing in the coming days.
It sounds like a horrendous idea, and would probably just result in No Deal winning, for the exact same reasons that Brexit won the first referendum ("No Deal" would be the blank slate of those 3 options, and therefore floating voters could just project whatever they wanted onto it).
If you offer three options, the one in the middle tends to win (and most especially so if it's conducted under some kind of AV).
So that would be quite a smart way for Theresa May to get a mandate for her deal, except for the inconvenient fact that there's no time. Even to arrange a referendum would take primary legislation. It ain't gonna happen.
Plucky British hero vs arrogant American billionaire....I wonder whose side they'll pick...?
One interesting thing is that Musk's account of the rescue is very different to other peoples. He says: "Water level was actually very low & still (not flowing) — you could literally have swum to Cave 5 with no gear, which is obv how the kids got in."
Except the water had gone up since the kids got in, and hence the problem. Whilst some of the way in was dry, diving was still necessary to get them out. Unless I've misunderstood something.
And on another point:; he wants to risk the lives of other divers by sending his pod in to test it. That's a dickish way to try to prove a point.
If it was as easy as Musk says, why did a Thai Navy diver die?
Ex Seal equivalent in the Thai navy, had been retired and was working in Security at a local airport. From reading between the lines, he had not been received requalification on equipment and safety, and that he had been diving without a buddy in a cave system he was not familiar with Sometimes, brave men do incredibly stupid things.
I'm afraid that's one of the worst pieces I've read on here.
Truss and McVey?!
And not understanding why the odds are different on next Tory leader and next PM - REALLY?!?! This is Betting 101 stuff - there's more chance of McVey (say) becoming next Tory leader in either govt or opposition, rather than only in govt.
Comments
So if they're going to do in TMay, they need to be reasonably confident that someone else will be able to make a deal, either a different one or the same one but delivered with more style and grace. The problem with this is that once started, the process is unpredictable, so although you could imagine a better outcome, they have a very serious downside risk of a really terrible one.
I think the upshot is that TMay stays until a deal is signed. After that they're free to ditch her and elect one of her opponents who can channel the righteous anger of the base without the risk that it will actually be turned into policy. If she's replaced before then, it really needs to be with a Michael-Howard-style consensus stitch-up, but it's hard to see them getting there with the party as divided as it is.
Dear oh dear oh dear....
The only point of this article was to make sure people remembered Boris is still around while he works on his resignation speech.
So that would be quite a smart way for Theresa May to get a mandate for her deal, except for the inconvenient fact that there's no time. Even to arrange a referendum would take primary legislation. It ain't gonna happen.
Truss and McVey?!
And not understanding why the odds are different on next Tory leader and next PM - REALLY?!?! This is Betting 101 stuff - there's more chance of McVey (say) becoming next Tory leader in either govt or opposition, rather than only in govt.
Will not read again