Theresa May was under fresh pressure last night as the DUP threatened to abandon her in a confidence vote if she failed to get her Brexit deal through parliament.
Party sources said that they were considering the move, which would leave the prime minister without a Commons majority, over fears that her plan would create a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK....
.... A DUP source rejected suggestions that the party would have to back Mrs May because of its confidence-and-supply arrangement with the Tories. He suggested that the Conservatives were not living up to their end of the deal between the two parties, pointing to unionist fears that the deal would create a sea border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. The DUP, however, would risk losing its role as kingmaker if another general election did not result in a hung parliament.
To be honest...a lot of them would prefer that to what May is proposing....
Then they should rescind their membership
Blind loyalty has its problems and has led to the rise of this extremism..
Rubbish. The Conservative Brexiteers have brought down several Conservative leaders (and election winners). Hardly 'loyalty'.
They're the extremists, as the increasingly fevered rantings of the ERGers show. Neither is anybody who threatened to move over to UKIP 'loyal'.
They have?
As far as I'm aware the only Conservative leaders to have been brought down by MPs rather than the electorate were leaders who were more Eurosceptic than their fellow MPs. No Europhile leader has been brought down by MPs to my knowledge.
May: Still in power at the moment. Cameron: Resigned after rejected by electorate in referendum. Howard: Resigned after rejected by electorate in election. IDS: Eurosceptic leader brought down by MPs. Major: Resigned after rejected by electorate in election. Thatcher: Initially very Europhile, brought down by MPs after she became Eurosceptic.
Interesting thought experiment though. In order to replace the lost DUP C&S, what could May offer the other parties to get them on board
1) Lib Dems - PR 2) SNP - further Scottish devolution, Indyref2 3) Labour - permanent customs union, workers rights enshrined in Pol Dec.
?
They have very small numbers but has anyone thought about Plaid Cymru?
The new leader comes across as less left wing than the old one, I think he said something about being willing to work with the Tories to get Labour out of power in Wales.
Only 4 votes but that might be enough to make the math work.
May could offer an indyref to Wales. It'd be highly unlikely to pass (I know, I know)
I'm sure they'd like the idea but realistically no chance of winning it. I really don't see a SNP style build up of momentum from it either though I suppose they might hope for that.
I don't know how practical they are but I'm leaning towards them (if the situation arose) asking for something more concrete then a referendum. Though I'm sure they would realise they are in a rare position and want to take advantage I can see them being a bit easier work than say the DUP.
I'm not sure PC would work with the Tories it just seems more realistic than SNP and Labour who are anti tory and the Lib Dems for obvious recent reasons.
Theresa May was under fresh pressure last night as the DUP threatened to abandon her in a confidence vote if she failed to get her Brexit deal through parliament.
Party sources said that they were considering the move, which would leave the prime minister without a Commons majority, over fears that her plan would create a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK....
.... A DUP source rejected suggestions that the party would have to back Mrs May because of its confidence-and-supply arrangement with the Tories. He suggested that the Conservatives were not living up to their end of the deal between the two parties, pointing to unionist fears that the deal would create a sea border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. The DUP, however, would risk losing its role as kingmaker if another general election did not result in a hung parliament.
If I was in the DUP I'd suggest they should threaten to put down a motion of no confidence themselves, then put the Tories on the spot with 14 days to find a solution that doesn't entail a backstop.
On topic: I think Mike's logic is a bit wrong here. You have to distinguish between an emergency PM, and the person who becomes the leader/PM after a contest. If Theresa May resigns or is pushed, there are three scenarios, in decreasing order of probability:
1. She announces her resignation, but stays on as PM and leader until the party has chosen a replacement.
2. She stands down immediately, before there is time to hold a proper contest. In that scenario, by far the most likely course is that the cabinet would agree a temporary PM to hold the fort (and hopefully win any Commons confidence vote) whilst the contest took place. The temporary PM would be appointed on the strict understanding that he or she would not close off any Brexit options (but perhaps might ask for an Article 50 extension to give time for a new approach).
3. She stands down immediately, and MPs very rapidly appoint her permanent successor as leader and PM without consulting the membership. I think this is very unlikely, because (to put it mildly) there's not much indication that Tory MPs are near-unanimous in their views as to who should be leader and the direction that should be taken, and because ordinary party members (already disgruntled) would be furious if there were excluded.
For the 'emergency PM' in scenario 2, it has to be someone who is uncontroversial, trusted to be impartial, and who is not one of the contenders for the permanent position. Hunt and Javid are most definitely contenders for the full contest, so they'd be ruled out. Hammond would be ruled out because he's hated by the Brexiteers. One possibility might be David Lidington, who is deputy PM and not in the running for leader; although he's a Remainer, he's generally trusted as a safe pair of hands. Otherwise it's hard to think of who could take the role - Hague from the Lords, perhaps? But that has it's own difficulties.
Betting-wise, yes, Hunt and Javid are both strong contenders for the next leader, and also for next PM in scenario 1 (or conceivably 3).
Finally, if you're betting on this, check the rules. Most bookies will settle 'Next leader' on the next permanent leader only, not a caretaker, but there's no such thing as a caretaker PM, so any emergency PM in scenario 2 would be the winner on a next PM market.
I don’t think May will go anywhere. Even if there is a leadership contest, Ithink she’ll survive which is why Corbyn is a nailed on certainty to be in office next year. May is pure electoral poison and completely ineffective.
There are three feasible routes now to getting rid of May and two to a general election:
Getting rid of May: 1. Loses leadership challenge in the wake of overwhelming defeat for her plan. 2. Decides to go voluntarily (not likely unless several of her supporters in Cabinet indicate privately that they would otherwise back 1) 3. Government led by May loses a parliamentary vote of no confidence (without there having been a prior leadership challenge) and then within the 14 days she is got rid of in favour of a leader who could regain the support of the DUP, forestalling a GE.
The prospect of a GE is not a nailed on certainty. The only feasible routes I can see to a general election are if she survives a leadership challenge and then: 1. she loses a parliamentary vote of no confidence and prefers to contest the GE than resign voluntarily or 2. she calls a GE of her own volition (which Labour would of course support in the parliamentary vote). Neither would be possible if the Conservative Party still has the option of challenging her leadership.
They are. They won’t support the Tories in a VONC if Starmer/Corbyn tables one.
They'll abstain ?
How do the numbers look then ? If they vote against the Gov't is obviously toast.
There has not been much recent polling. Survation polled England and Wales (but not Scotland) last week and put the Conservatives on 42%m to Labour on 43%, Had Scotland been polled, the parties would likely have been level-pegging.
Free migration has never been popular among the voters.
True, and that's a monumental political failure
I prefer to think of it as a monumental editorial success. Easy to blame politicians for their failures but sections of the right wing press should really get some of the credit.
I prefer to think of it as a monumental editorial success. Easy to blame politicians for their failures but sections of the right wing press should really get some of the credit.
I think the Sikhs should come out strongly for the people's vote, maybe attract some disaffected remainer christians...
Not so fast. I recall door knocking a few years back with a Sikh councillor, who was extremely concerned that his ward was being changed demographically by an influx of Eastern Europeans who he said exhibited hostile attitudes towards his community typical of those of many British people in an earlier bygone era of racial prejudice.
Except when they're the ones doing the migrating, of course.
Anecdotally some of them don't seem to have made the mental link. Yet.
Most ex-pats or emigrants (or whatever you want to call them) go and work in the Anglosphere. People - usually those who've never done it - think that 'Freedom of Movement' means no friction, paperwork or bureaucracy, and that might be true in certain circumstances; itinerant childless twenty-something professionals spring to mind.
For the rest of us - e.g. homeowning parents it's not something to be done lightly, and the fact that no visa or work permit is required is pretty much the least of our woes.
As an asdide, back in the day we'd put our young 'uns out to the continent, now we're sorting out an internship for our youngest in Chengdu. We should be less parochial.
It was Freedom of Movement and the ending of it that won the referendum, hardly chilling
Yes it was, that's the chilling bit.
Blatant Xenophobia won the referendum. Only the idiots are cheering.
Free migration has never been popular among the voters.
I think we've learned the hard way that attempting to placate extremism doesn't work and can backfire spectacularly.
I think what has never been adequately addressed is the reason why the UK's benefits, housing and healthcare systems are so unduly strained by what should be a reasonably sustainable level of immigration, especially as compared to other EU nations.
I think there's been a real public policy failure here. Blaming immigration allowed politicians to ignore serious structural problems in our services for decades, and here we are.
Free migration has never been popular among the voters.
True, and that's a monumental political failure
I prefer to think of it as a monumental editorial success. Easy to blame politicians for their failures but sections of the right wing press should really get some of the credit.
Shirley in Southampton its now totally dominated by Polish people, you hardly hear a English word spoken in the High street there. The right wing press have not invented that, it is the real world.
To be honest...a lot of them would prefer that to what May is proposing....
Then they should rescind their membership
Blind loyalty has its problems and has led to the rise of this extremism..
Rubbish. The Conservative Brexiteers have brought down several Conservative leaders (and election winners). Hardly 'loyalty'.
They're the extremists, as the increasingly fevered rantings of the ERGers show. Neither is anybody who threatened to move over to UKIP 'loyal'.
They have?
As far as I'm aware the only Conservative leaders to have been brought down by MPs rather than the electorate were leaders who were more Eurosceptic than their fellow MPs. No Europhile leader has been brought down by MPs to my knowledge.
May: Still in power at the moment. Cameron: Resigned after rejected by electorate in referendum. Howard: Resigned after rejected by electorate in election. IDS: Eurosceptic leader brought down by MPs. Major: Resigned after rejected by electorate in election. Thatcher: Initially very Europhile, brought down by MPs after she became Eurosceptic.
Cameron was seen by idiots on here as being a 'Europhile', (basically because whilst he was Eurosceptic, he wasn't Europhobic - and that's all that counts in their minds). His leadership was undermined by the Europhobes, including some who pi**ed off to UKIP. The Europhobes brought him down.
Major's 1992-7 government faced many problems, and would have lot in 1997 regardless. However the depth of his defeat was helped by the correctly-labelled bastards.
You are right about Thatcher.
And now they're doing the same with May.
The Europhobes know f-all about loyalty, to their leader, the public, or the country.
I think the Sikhs should come out strongly for the people's vote, maybe attract some disaffected remainer christians...
Not so fast. I recall door knocking a few years back with a Sikh councillor, who was extremely concerned that his ward was being changed demographically by an influx of Eastern Europeans who he said exhibited hostile attitudes towards his community typical of those of many British people in an earlier bygone era of racial prejudice.
It was a silly joke really, the concept of people changing their religious beliefs based on Brexit, or a religion using Brexit to win converts disaffected by their own religious groups Brexit position would be ridiculous.
Also I just picked Sikhs sorta randomly, plenty of every group voted leave though as a complete guess I might put them down as more remainers than leavers.
It was Freedom of Movement and the ending of it that won the referendum, hardly chilling
Yes it was, that's the chilling bit.
Blatant Xenophobia won the referendum. Only the idiots are cheering.
Free migration has never been popular among the voters.
I think we've learned the hard way that attempting to placate extremism doesn't work and can backfire spectacularly.
I think what has never been adequately addressed is the reason why the UK's benefits, housing and healthcare systems are so unduly strained by what should be a reasonably sustainable level of immigration, especially as compared to other EU nations.
I think there's been a real public policy failure here. Blaming immigration allowed politicians to ignore serious structural problems in our services for decades, and here we are.
I don't think that anything other than a complete catastrophe, would persuade the voters to ditch the social market model that's prevailed since the end of WWII. People want an extensive welfare State, so long as taxes don't go too high.
It was Freedom of Movement and the ending of it that won the referendum, hardly chilling
Yes it was, that's the chilling bit.
Blatant Xenophobia won the referendum. Only the idiots are cheering.
Free migration has never been popular among the voters.
I think we've learned the hard way that attempting to placate extremism doesn't work and can backfire spectacularly.
I think what has never been adequately addressed is the reason why the UK's benefits, housing and healthcare systems are so unduly strained by what should be a reasonably sustainable level of immigration, especially as compared to other EU nations.
I think there's been a real public policy failure here. Blaming immigration allowed politicians to ignore serious structural problems in our services for decades, and here we are.
It was Freedom of Movement and the ending of it that won the referendum, hardly chilling
Yes it was, that's the chilling bit.
Blatant Xenophobia won the referendum. Only the idiots are cheering.
Free migration has never been popular among the voters.
I think we've learned the hard way that attempting to placate extremism doesn't work and can backfire spectacularly.
I think what has never been adequately addressed is the reason why the UK's benefits, housing and healthcare systems are so unduly strained by what should be a reasonably sustainable level of immigration, especially as compared to other EU nations.
I think there's been a real public policy failure here. Blaming immigration allowed politicians to ignore serious structural problems in our services for decades, and here we are.
Lest we forget, mass, unforecasted immigration is a recent phenomenon. Until '97/98 net migration to the UK was pretty much noise level (yet somehow economic growth was brisk) . It's a truly 21st century thang.
To be honest...a lot of them would prefer that to what May is proposing....
Then they should rescind their membership
Blind loyalty has its problems and has led to the rise of this extremism..
Rubbish. The Conservative Brexiteers have brought down several Conservative leaders (and election winners). Hardly 'loyalty'.
They're the extremists, as the increasingly fevered rantings of the ERGers show. Neither is anybody who threatened to move over to UKIP 'loyal'.
They have?
As far as I'm aware the only Conservative leaders to have been brought down by MPs rather than the electorate were leaders who were more Eurosceptic than their fellow MPs. No Europhile leader has been brought down by MPs to my knowledge.
May: Still in power at the moment. Cameron: Resigned after rejected by electorate in referendum. Howard: Resigned after rejected by electorate in election. IDS: Eurosceptic leader brought down by MPs. Major: Resigned after rejected by electorate in election. Thatcher: Initially very Europhile, brought down by MPs after she became Eurosceptic.
Cameron was seen by idiots on here as being a 'Europhile', (basically because whilst he was Eurosceptic, he wasn't Europhobic - and that's all that counts in their minds). His leadership was undermined by the Europhobes, including some who pi**ed off to UKIP. The Europhobes brought him down.
Major's 1992-7 government faced many problems, and would have lot in 1997 regardless. However the depth of his defeat was helped by the correctly-labelled bastards.
You are right about Thatcher.
And now they're doing the same with May.
The Europhobes know f-all about loyalty, to their leader, the public, or the country.
There are idiots on every side, for every Soubry there's a Rees-Mogg.
The difference is that neither Cameron nor Major were brought down by their 'bastards'. IDS and Thatcher were.
Cameron survived his "fruitcakes, nuts and loons" pissing off to UKIP and increased his majority from them doing so. The public voting to Leave is what brought him down not Europhobes.
Eurosceptics have been completely impotent at actually bringing down a leader to date.
It was Freedom of Movement and the ending of it that won the referendum, hardly chilling
Yes it was, that's the chilling bit.
Blatant Xenophobia won the referendum. Only the idiots are cheering.
Free migration has never been popular among the voters.
I think we've learned the hard way that attempting to placate extremism doesn't work and can backfire spectacularly.
I think what has never been adequately addressed is the reason why the UK's benefits, housing and healthcare systems are so unduly strained by what should be a reasonably sustainable level of immigration, especially as compared to other EU nations.
I think there's been a real public policy failure here. Blaming immigration allowed politicians to ignore serious structural problems in our services for decades, and here we are.
300,000 a year is reasonably sustainable?
I mean, other EU nations seem to be able to cope with proportionate levels of immigration. We cannot- and I don't think UK politicians have ever seriously engaged with why.
315 Tories + Bercow + Elphicke + Griffiths = 318 257 Labour + 35 SNP + 12 Lib Dems + 4 PC + 1 Green + Field + Hopkins + Lewis + O'Mara + Woodcock = 314. SF, DUP abstain = 17 Hermon = ?
So the Gov't can afford a DUP abstention but not vote against.
I'm not sure about Field and O'Mara.
I thought Woodcock would be less likely than O'Mara, with Field in between.
I can't remember exactly what was said but I think Woodcock talked about preferring May to Corbyn whereas O'Mara may be annoyed at the party I don't think his politics would be closer to May's than Corbyn's.
Which doesn't rule anything out but O'Mara only* has vengeful reasons to do so whereas Woodcock has political and/or vengeful reasons to do so.
*Assuming I'm correct on his politics.
They also could vote against anything that triggers an election in the interests of keeping their job which applies to both but is maybe a bigger deal for O'Mara given that he will likely only ever get one term?
Amateurs. SeanT is the true artist when it comes to insulting other posters
Yeah, you expect it from Sean. But Sean F and Richard N are usually so mild-mannered that when they unleash a well-aimed insult the effect is so much more pronounced.
It was Freedom of Movement and the ending of it that won the referendum, hardly chilling
Yes it was, that's the chilling bit.
Blatant Xenophobia won the referendum. Only the idiots are cheering.
Free migration has never been popular among the voters.
I think we've learned the hard way that attempting to placate extremism doesn't work and can backfire spectacularly.
I think what has never been adequately addressed is the reason why the UK's benefits, housing and healthcare systems are so unduly strained by what should be a reasonably sustainable level of immigration, especially as compared to other EU nations.
I think there's been a real public policy failure here. Blaming immigration allowed politicians to ignore serious structural problems in our services for decades, and here we are.
300,000 a year is reasonably sustainable?
I mean, other EU nations seem to be able to cope with proportionate levels of immigration. We cannot- and I don't think UK politicians have ever seriously engaged with why.
Name the other EU nations with our population density and out net migration rate.
315 Tories + Bercow + Elphicke + Griffiths = 318 257 Labour + 35 SNP + 12 Lib Dems + 4 PC + 1 Green + Field + Hopkins + Lewis + O'Mara + Woodcock = 314. SF, DUP abstain = 17 Hermon = ?
So the Gov't can afford a DUP abstention but not vote against.
I wouldn’t put Bercow in the government column.
The precedent is that the Speaker votes with the government as not to create a majority where none exists.
However this is a minority government so an anti government majority already exists.
Denison's Rule, which seems to be the prevailing convention on how speakers decide ties, states that the principle is to always vote in favour of further debate, or, where it has been previously decided, to have no further debate or in some specific instances, to vote in favour of the status quo
For example, the Speaker will vote:
in favour of early readings of bills against amendments to bills against the final enactment of a bill against motions of no confidence
Denison's Rule, which seems to be the prevailing convention on how speakers decide ties is states that the principle is to always vote in favour of further debate, or, where it has been previously decided, to have no further debate or in some specific instances, to vote in favour of the status quo
For example, the Speaker will vote:
in favour of early readings of bills against amendments to bills against the final enactment of a bill against motions of no confidence
Sure, Bercow might hate the Gov't and Brexit - but he's very keen on following convention and tradition.
It was Freedom of Movement and the ending of it that won the referendum, hardly chilling
Yes it was, that's the chilling bit.
Blatant Xenophobia won the referendum. Only the idiots are cheering.
Free migration has never been popular among the voters.
I think we've learned the hard way that attempting to placate extremism doesn't work and can backfire spectacularly.
I think what has never been adequately addressed is the reason why the UK's benefits, housing and healthcare systems are so unduly strained by what should be a reasonably sustainable level of immigration, especially as compared to other EU nations.
I think there's been a real public policy failure here. Blaming immigration allowed politicians to ignore serious structural problems in our services for decades, and here we are.
300,000 a year is reasonably sustainable?
I mean, other EU nations seem to be able to cope with proportionate levels of immigration. We cannot- and I don't think UK politicians have ever seriously engaged with why.
Name the other EU nations with our population density and out net migration rate.
Not directly responding to you, but for those interested, here's a useful link:
It was Freedom of Movement and the ending of it that won the referendum, hardly chilling
Yes it was, that's the chilling bit.
Blatant Xenophobia won the referendum. Only the idiots are cheering.
Free migration has never been popular among the voters.
I think we've learned the hard way that attempting to placate extremism doesn't work and can backfire spectacularly.
I think what has never been adequately addressed is the reason why the UK's benefits, housing and healthcare systems are so unduly strained by what should be a reasonably sustainable level of immigration, especially as compared to other EU nations.
I think there's been a real public policy failure here. Blaming immigration allowed politicians to ignore serious structural problems in our services for decades, and here we are.
300,000 a year is reasonably sustainable?
I mean, other EU nations seem to be able to cope with proportionate levels of immigration. We cannot- and I don't think UK politicians have ever seriously engaged with why.
Small already full country perhaps? Whole areas radically changed?
Denison's Rule, which seems to be the prevailing convention on how speakers decide ties is states that the principle is to always vote in favour of further debate, or, where it has been previously decided, to have no further debate or in some specific instances, to vote in favour of the status quo
For example, the Speaker will vote:
in favour of early readings of bills against amendments to bills against the final enactment of a bill against motions of no confidence
Sure, Bercow might hate the Gov't and Brexit - but he's very keen on following convention and tradition.
I'm not so sure. Bercow's been very keen to show his credentials in standing up for the rights of Parliament against an overmighty executive. Given that the loss of a VONC, under the FTPA, doesn't trigger an election, but simply empowers Parliament to act, I could see Bercow voting yes on a VONC, and justifying it thus.
To be fair Julian Smith he’s always managed to get the Tory vote out when it matters.
Is there any chance the ultra-remainers within the Tories might go for the nuclear solution. I think those would be the ones I'd keep an eye on as Smith.
It was Freedom of Movement and the ending of it that won the referendum, hardly chilling
Yes it was, that's the chilling bit.
Blatant Xenophobia won the referendum. Only the idiots are cheering.
Free migration has never been popular among the voters.
I think we've learned the hard way that attempting to placate extremism doesn't work and can backfire spectacularly.
I think what has never been adequately addressed is the reason why the UK's benefits, housing and healthcare systems are so unduly strained by what should be a reasonably sustainable level of immigration, especially as compared to other EU nations.
I think there's been a real public policy failure here. Blaming immigration allowed politicians to ignore serious structural problems in our services for decades, and here we are.
300,000 a year is reasonably sustainable?
I mean, other EU nations seem to be able to cope with proportionate levels of immigration. We cannot- and I don't think UK politicians have ever seriously engaged with why.
Small already full country perhaps? Whole areas radically changed?
You see, those are two racist arguments. Which I think rather makes the point.
So a GE early 2019, Cons under May offering this deal, Lab under Corbyn offering 2nd ref with option to remain, what do we think the most likely outcome of that would be?
To be fair Julian Smith he’s always managed to get the Tory vote out when it matters.
Is there any chance the ultra-remainers within the Tories might go for the nuclear solution. I think those would be the ones I'd keep an eye on as Smith.
TBC, the nuclear option is for the ERG to resign the whip en-masse, form a new Brexit Buccaneer party and support a VONC, thus triggering a general election?
That would almost certainly see the ERG losing most of their seats as they went into the general election as Independents.
They're stupid and self-destructive, but are they *that* stupid and self-destructive?
It was Freedom of Movement and the ending of it that won the referendum, hardly chilling
Yes it was, that's the chilling bit.
Blatant Xenophobia won the referendum. Only the idiots are cheering.
Free migration has never been popular among the voters.
I think we've learned the hard way that attempting to placate extremism doesn't work and can backfire spectacularly.
I think what has never been adequately addressed is the reason why the UK's benefits, housing and healthcare systems are so unduly strained by what should be a reasonably sustainable level of immigration, especially as compared to other EU nations.
I think there's been a real public policy failure here. Blaming immigration allowed politicians to ignore serious structural problems in our services for decades, and here we are.
300,000 a year is reasonably sustainable?
I mean, other EU nations seem to be able to cope with proportionate levels of immigration. We cannot- and I don't think UK politicians have ever seriously engaged with why.
Small already full country perhaps? Whole areas radically changed?
You see, those are two racist arguments. Which I think rather makes the point.
To be fair Julian Smith he’s always managed to get the Tory vote out when it matters.
Is there any chance the ultra-remainers within the Tories might go for the nuclear solution. I think those would be the ones I'd keep an eye on as Smith.
Ken Clarke, Dominic Grievr, and Anna Soubry hate Corbyn as PM more than Brexit, so Julian Smith should not worry about them.
So a GE early 2019, Cons under May offering this deal, Lab under Corbyn offering 2nd ref with option to remain, what do we think the most likely outcome of that would be?
Would Corbyn offer a referendum? I can't see him wanting a referendum as he might lose and have to resign. More likely he would say they would get a better deal.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
I don't agree May wont resign. She hasn't because her deal has not been rejected officially. Lose by150 or 200 and she is no longer the most likely to see any new action through. Someone else has a better chance of attempting to get tweaks. It might not be possible but parliament will have demanded it. As she will no longer be the best person to try to take it forward she might qui then.
As odd as it may seem she has had a reason to stay on, a small part to success. That won't be the case soon so it would be time.
There will be no tweaks and certainly none to satisfy the ERG.
For the umpteenth time the EU have made clear it is this Deal or No Deal. End of conversation. There is no other Deal available without permanent Customs Union and/or permanent Single Market
For the umpteenth time I believe you. But Mps will act based on what they believe not what you or I believe, even if that means they attempt something pointless.
You cannot assume mps will act in ways based on premises they don't believe. They mostly think there are changes to be made. They will accordingly no matter how wrong you think they are.
So what the EU will not change. So that means either May calls a referendum including the Deal or the economic disaster of No Deal or Corbyn becomes PM and permanent Customs Union
The 'so what' is that it affects what mps will decided, when and how, and when reality will hit them.
To be fair Julian Smith he’s always managed to get the Tory vote out when it matters.
Is there any chance the ultra-remainers within the Tories might go for the nuclear solution. I think those would be the ones I'd keep an eye on as Smith.
Ken Clarke, Dominic Grievr, and Anna Soubry hate Corbyn as PM more than Brexit, so Julian Smith should not worry about them.
Wollaston I’d worry about.
One thing about Wollaston is that she was initially selected in a full open primary when every person in the constituency was sent a voting pack. This gives her a strong mandate.
So a GE early 2019, Cons under May offering this deal, Lab under Corbyn offering 2nd ref with option to remain, what do we think the most likely outcome of that would be?
Would Corbyn offer a referendum? I can't see him wanting a referendum as he might lose and have to resign. More likely he would say they would get a better deal.
John McDonnell at the Guardian event (where he incidentally said he was a Remainer both in the past and any future referendum) suggested that if Corbyn became PM and negotiated a revised deal, it would be appropriate to put that to a referendum.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
I love racists making arguments about racism. It's...kind of recursive. For avoidance of doubt: you are a racist.
Not everyone supports freedom of movement. I do, but it's not chilling to not want it, Lammy needs to get a grip.
Javid can say we're ending Freedom of Movement become FoM is entirely a creation of the EU. It is no synonymous with a high level of immigration, or even uncontrolled immigration. It reflects the fact the EU nationals have the prima facie right to enter the UK and all limitations are derogations from that right.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
I love racists making arguments about racism. It's...kind of recursive. For avoidance of doubt: you are a racist.
To be fair Julian Smith he’s always managed to get the Tory vote out when it matters.
Is there any chance the ultra-remainers within the Tories might go for the nuclear solution. I think those would be the ones I'd keep an eye on as Smith.
Ken Clarke, Dominic Grievr, and Anna Soubry hate Corbyn as PM more than Brexit, so Julian Smith should not worry about them.
Wollaston I’d worry about.
I think she's the weakest link. She has the zeal of the convert.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
I love racists making arguments about racism. It's...kind of recursive. For avoidance of doubt: you are a racist.
John, we've been over this before, gammons don't count as a race.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
I love racists making arguments about racism. It's...kind of recursive. For avoidance of doubt: you are a racist.
John, we've been over this before, gammons don't count as a race.
But won't the term force Jews, Muslims and vegans to rush to their nearest safe space?
So a GE early 2019, Cons under May offering this deal, Lab under Corbyn offering 2nd ref with option to remain, what do we think the most likely outcome of that would be?
Labour win if they pitch it as remain an option but we will seek to renegotiate. The Tories simply cannot stand united promoting this deal, too many standing mps will not do it.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
I love racists making arguments about racism. It's...kind of recursive. For avoidance of doubt: you are a racist.
John, we've been over this before, gammons don't count as a race.
Nothing wrong with being a gammon. It's just a left wing insult meaning a Conservative.
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
Using a racist slur while accusing others of racism. Nice.
And people can feel threatened when a different culture that does not integrate starts to become predominant in their towns. It doesn't make them all scum.
To be fair Julian Smith he’s always managed to get the Tory vote out when it matters.
Is there any chance the ultra-remainers within the Tories might go for the nuclear solution. I think those would be the ones I'd keep an eye on as Smith.
Ken Clarke, Dominic Grievr, and Anna Soubry hate Corbyn as PM more than Brexit, so Julian Smith should not worry about them.
Wollaston I’d worry about.
I think she's the weakest link. She has the zeal of the convert.
Would Corbyn offer a referendum? I can't see him wanting a referendum as he might lose and have to resign. More likely he would say they would get a better deal.
I don't think that position "We would get a better deal" would hold up too well in a GE campaign. But ok maybe.
What I'm more getting at is if (hypothetically) we see a GE early next year where the Cons under May run as the party which will deliver this halfway house brexit versus Lab under Corbyn running as the party willing to embrace remain, who wins that? And is it close or is it clear and decisive?
When you say "areas radically changed" you mean "I feel threatened because there are different people about".
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
Using a racist slur while accusing others of racism. Nice.
And people can feel threatened when a different culture that does not integrate starts to become predominant in their towns. It doesn't make them all scum.
I think it's fair to say that parts of London contain different cultures which have become predominant and don't seem to integrate.
That of course would be the London which voted overwhelmingly to Remain.
Comments
Theresa May was under fresh pressure last night as the DUP threatened to abandon her in a confidence vote if she failed to get her Brexit deal through parliament.
Party sources said that they were considering the move, which would leave the prime minister without a Commons majority, over fears that her plan would create a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK....
.... A DUP source rejected suggestions that the party would have to back Mrs May because of its confidence-and-supply arrangement with the Tories. He suggested that the Conservatives were not living up to their end of the deal between the two parties, pointing to unionist fears that the deal would create a sea border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. The DUP, however, would risk losing its role as kingmaker if another general election did not result in a hung parliament.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/dup-threat-to-abandon-support-for-theresa-may-in-vote-l8vkfgcfs
As far as I'm aware the only Conservative leaders to have been brought down by MPs rather than the electorate were leaders who were more Eurosceptic than their fellow MPs. No Europhile leader has been brought down by MPs to my knowledge.
May: Still in power at the moment.
Cameron: Resigned after rejected by electorate in referendum.
Howard: Resigned after rejected by electorate in election.
IDS: Eurosceptic leader brought down by MPs.
Major: Resigned after rejected by electorate in election.
Thatcher: Initially very Europhile, brought down by MPs after she became Eurosceptic.
I don't know how practical they are but I'm leaning towards them (if the situation arose) asking for something more concrete then a referendum. Though I'm sure they would realise they are in a rare position and want to take advantage I can see them being a bit easier work than say the DUP.
I'm not sure PC would work with the Tories it just seems more realistic than SNP and Labour who are anti tory and the Lib Dems for obvious recent reasons.
1. She announces her resignation, but stays on as PM and leader until the party has chosen a replacement.
2. She stands down immediately, before there is time to hold a proper contest. In that scenario, by far the most likely course is that the cabinet would agree a temporary PM to hold the fort (and hopefully win any Commons confidence vote) whilst the contest took place. The temporary PM would be appointed on the strict understanding that he or she would not close off any Brexit options (but perhaps might ask for an Article 50 extension to give time for a new approach).
3. She stands down immediately, and MPs very rapidly appoint her permanent successor as leader and PM without consulting the membership. I think this is very unlikely, because (to put it mildly) there's not much indication that Tory MPs are near-unanimous in their views as to who should be leader and the direction that should be taken, and because ordinary party members (already disgruntled) would be furious if there were excluded.
For the 'emergency PM' in scenario 2, it has to be someone who is uncontroversial, trusted to be impartial, and who is not one of the contenders for the permanent position. Hunt and Javid are most definitely contenders for the full contest, so they'd be ruled out. Hammond would be ruled out because he's hated by the Brexiteers. One possibility might be David Lidington, who is deputy PM and not in the running for leader; although he's a Remainer, he's generally trusted as a safe pair of hands. Otherwise it's hard to think of who could take the role - Hague from the Lords, perhaps? But that has it's own difficulties.
Betting-wise, yes, Hunt and Javid are both strong contenders for the next leader, and also for next PM in scenario 1 (or conceivably 3).
Finally, if you're betting on this, check the rules. Most bookies will settle 'Next leader' on the next permanent leader only, not a caretaker, but there's no such thing as a caretaker PM, so any emergency PM in scenario 2 would be the winner on a next PM market.
Getting rid of May:
1. Loses leadership challenge in the wake of overwhelming defeat for her plan.
2. Decides to go voluntarily (not likely unless several of her supporters in Cabinet indicate privately that they would otherwise back 1)
3. Government led by May loses a parliamentary vote of no confidence (without there having been a prior leadership challenge) and then within the 14 days she is got rid of in favour of a leader who could regain the support of the DUP, forestalling a GE.
The prospect of a GE is not a nailed on certainty. The only feasible routes I can see to a general election are if she survives a leadership challenge and then:
1. she loses a parliamentary vote of no confidence and prefers to contest the GE than resign voluntarily or
2. she calls a GE of her own volition (which Labour would of course support in the parliamentary vote).
Neither would be possible if the Conservative Party still has the option of challenging her leadership.
OK he looks better at the home office but....
When you meet him he just tends to look through you..maybe its me.
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/1069518242950057990?s=21
For the rest of us - e.g. homeowning parents it's not something to be done lightly, and the fact that no visa or work permit is required is pretty much the least of our woes.
As an asdide, back in the day we'd put our young 'uns out to the continent, now we're sorting out an internship for our youngest in Chengdu. We should be less parochial.
I think what has never been adequately addressed is the reason why the UK's benefits, housing and healthcare systems are so unduly strained by what should be a reasonably sustainable level of immigration, especially as compared to other EU nations.
I think there's been a real public policy failure here. Blaming immigration allowed politicians to ignore serious structural problems in our services for decades, and here we are.
1. Shoot swans
2. ???
3. Republic!
Major's 1992-7 government faced many problems, and would have lot in 1997 regardless. However the depth of his defeat was helped by the correctly-labelled bastards.
You are right about Thatcher.
And now they're doing the same with May.
The Europhobes know f-all about loyalty, to their leader, the public, or the country.
Also I just picked Sikhs sorta randomly, plenty of every group voted leave though as a complete guess I might put them down as more remainers than leavers.
315 Tories + Bercow + Elphicke + Griffiths = 318
257 Labour + 35 SNP + 12 Lib Dems + 4 PC + 1 Green + Field + Hopkins + Lewis + O'Mara + Woodcock = 314.
SF, DUP abstain = 17
Hermon = ?
So the Gov't can afford a DUP abstention but not vote against.
The precedent is that the Speaker votes with the government as not to create a majority where none exists.
However this is a minority government so an anti government majority already exists.
Rainbow 314 + Hermon + Bercow = 316
Slim majority indeed.
The difference is that neither Cameron nor Major were brought down by their 'bastards'. IDS and Thatcher were.
Cameron survived his "fruitcakes, nuts and loons" pissing off to UKIP and increased his majority from them doing so. The public voting to Leave is what brought him down not Europhobes.
Eurosceptics have been completely impotent at actually bringing down a leader to date.
I can't remember exactly what was said but I think Woodcock talked about preferring May to Corbyn whereas O'Mara may be annoyed at the party I don't think his politics would be closer to May's than Corbyn's.
Which doesn't rule anything out but O'Mara only* has vengeful reasons to do so whereas Woodcock has political and/or vengeful reasons to do so.
*Assuming I'm correct on his politics.
They also could vote against anything that triggers an election in the interests of keeping their job which applies to both but is maybe a bigger deal for O'Mara given that he will likely only ever get one term?
For example, the Speaker will vote:
in favour of early readings of bills
against amendments to bills
against the final enactment of a bill
against motions of no confidence
http://bruegel.org/2017/12/how-the-eu-has-become-an-immigration-area/
Gives a per-country breakdown.
If Turkey was a member, freedom of movement would apply to them.
Which is exactly the argument the racists made during the campaign.
That would almost certainly see the ERG losing most of their seats as they went into the general election as Independents.
They're stupid and self-destructive, but are they *that* stupid and self-destructive?
Wollaston I’d worry about.
Number one shouty gammon rant. Pretty much a textbook definition of racism.
The second one, that the UK is "full" is a lie, rather than racist per se. But it's used by gammons as justification since even they know saying "my area has some different people in it and I don't like it" is racist.
When stripping citizens of rights they've had for decades, governments should be doing it in sorrow, not with pride.
Happily being in a safe seat for the blues means nothing I do will contribute to Corbyn becoming pm at a GE, so phew!
You going back to the Lib Dems (vote wise)? a minor party? abstain?
My impression is you've pretty much ruled out the Tories and Labour don't interest you.
And people can feel threatened when a different culture that does not integrate starts to become predominant in their towns. It doesn't make them all scum.
What I'm more getting at is if (hypothetically) we see a GE early next year where the Cons under May run as the party which will deliver this halfway house brexit versus Lab under Corbyn running as the party willing to embrace remain, who wins that? And is it close or is it clear and decisive?
That of course would be the London which voted overwhelmingly to Remain.
And here's the technical explanation:
https://thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-claims-hius-life-being-ruined-by-immigration-but-cant-explain-how-20170227122932