Mmm. Wonder how many other payroll votes will go before Tuesday? Why loyally defend an administration with days to live by voting for a Deal which is lost anyway, when you can virtue signal your ideological purity to whoever takes over?
Mmm. Wonder how many other payroll votes will go before Tuesday? Why loyally defend an administration with days to live by voting for a Deal which is lost anyway, when you can virtue signal your ideological purity to whoever takes over?
I will need to read more of his reasoning, because that headline summary makes no sense, as the obeying EU rules to some extent for years to come is explicit as part of the very concept of having a transition agreement, and if he was against a transition he should have quit eons ago!
Not the transition (which at under 2 years is pedantically not years) but the backstop.
Another one who can be won back by fixing the backstop.
How would you force the EU to sign a WA without the backstop?
Insist that we can't sign one with one. Call their bluff. While giving a face-saving commitment to in all good faith work together to ensure there is never a hard border in Ireland.
Ireland do not want a hard border. That's the whole point of the backstop. A no deal Brexit is the last thing they want.
A council document said 39 asylum seekers sent to Liverpool by the Home Office in 2018 "have then claimed they were children".
They then tested all 39 and found 2/3 were adults. So no it isn't 2/3 of all children, but 2/3 of those that claimed they were after being sent to Liverpool registered as adults.
There will be more resignations. It’s not too hard to work out who either.
Do you have your eye on anyone senior?
I count 27 MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are still in a government position.
To put that in context, just 11 MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are still in Parliament who are on the backbenches have declared for the deal. Work out for yourself how many of those 27 are comfortable with it.
Mmm. Wonder how many other payroll votes will go before Tuesday? Why loyally defend an administration with days to live by voting for a Deal which is lost anyway, when you can virtue signal your ideological purity to whoever takes over?
Point of interest. Do PPSs get paid?
No, although for some strange reason they are still referred to as being part of the Payroll Vote
Given that there is an EU27 summit just two days after Tuesday's vote, my expectation is that Theresa May will at least try to hang on to get some kind of change to the deal (in particular the backstop). I'm sure that the EU27 will offer some kind of 'clarification' or helpful statement that the backstop is only intended to be temporary, but that's unlikely to be enough.
A Northern Ireland referendum on triggering the backstop or unification could be a solution. It almost certainly creates a GE if even proposed by the Tories though.
There will be more resignations. It’s not too hard to work out who either.
Do you have your eye on anyone senior?
I count 27 MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are still in a government position.
To put that in context, just 11 MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are still in Parliament who are on the backbenches have declared for the deal. Work out for yourself how many of those 27 are comfortable with it.
Could you give us the missing piece of data (number of leave voters on backbenches) so we can extrapolate correctly from the 11 supporters?
Mmm. Wonder how many other payroll votes will go before Tuesday? Why loyally defend an administration with days to live by voting for a Deal which is lost anyway, when you can virtue signal your ideological purity to whoever takes over?
Point of interest. Do PPSs get paid?
No, although for some strange reason they are still referred to as being part of the Payroll Vote
Kind of like interns: one day, if they do really well, they might progress to being paid. Perhaps should be the ‘potential payroll vote’.
There will be more resignations. It’s not too hard to work out who either.
Do you have your eye on anyone senior?
I count 27 MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are still in a government position.
To put that in context, just 11 MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are still in Parliament who are on the backbenches have declared for the deal. Work out for yourself how many of those 27 are comfortable with it.
Could you give us the missing piece of data (number of leave voters on backbenches) so we can extrapolate correctly from the 11 supporters?
I’m not on the computer with my research but ISTR there are 81 Conservative MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are against the deal and a further 11 backbench Conservative MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who have not yet declared their intentions.
Mmm. Wonder how many other payroll votes will go before Tuesday? Why loyally defend an administration with days to live by voting for a Deal which is lost anyway, when you can virtue signal your ideological purity to whoever takes over?
Point of interest. Do PPSs get paid?
No, although for some strange reason they are still referred to as being part of the Payroll Vote
I suppose because of the obligation to still obey the collective responsibility of the whip or resign/be sacked from the post even if it is unpaid.
Aren't all Shadow positions technically unpaid apart from Leader of the Opposition? But Labour still has a 'payroll vote' too doesn't it, other than just Corbyn?
I will need to read more of his reasoning, because that headline summary makes no sense, as the obeying EU rules to some extent for years to come is explicit as part of the very concept of having a transition agreement, and if he was against a transition he should have quit eons ago!
Not the transition (which at under 2 years is pedantically not years) but the backstop.
Another one who can be won back by fixing the backstop.
How would you force the EU to sign a WA without the backstop?
Insist that we can't sign one with one. Call their bluff. While giving a face-saving commitment to in all good faith work together to ensure there is never a hard border in Ireland.
Ireland do not want a hard border. That's the whole point of the backstop. A no deal Brexit is the last thing they want.
I will need to read more of his reasoning, because that headline summary makes no sense, as the obeying EU rules to some extent for years to come is explicit as part of the very concept of having a transition agreement, and if he was against a transition he should have quit eons ago!
Not the transition (which at under 2 years is pedantically not years) but the backstop.
Another one who can be won back by fixing the backstop.
How would you force the EU to sign a WA without the backstop?
Insist that we can't sign one with one. Call their bluff. While giving a face-saving commitment to in all good faith work together to ensure there is never a hard border in Ireland.
Ireland do not want a hard border. That's the whole point of the backstop. A no deal Brexit is the last thing they want.
Yeah, that’s bound to work. Chortle.
Its not bound to work but it probably will and is better than all other proposed alternatives.
Do you think Ireland will just sit idly by and slide into a No Deal hard border?
I will need to read more of his reasoning, because that headline summary makes no sense, as the obeying EU rules to some extent for years to come is explicit as part of the very concept of having a transition agreement, and if he was against a transition he should have quit eons ago!
Not the transition (which at under 2 years is pedantically not years) but the backstop.
Another one who can be won back by fixing the backstop.
How would you force the EU to sign a WA without the backstop?
Insist that we can't sign one with one. Call their bluff. While giving a face-saving commitment to in all good faith work together to ensure there is never a hard border in Ireland.
Ireland do not want a hard border. That's the whole point of the backstop. A no deal Brexit is the last thing they want.
This assumes that the EU as an institution is more interested in helping to resolve the Republic of Ireland's problems than it is in using the Republic of Ireland's problems as leverage. It is just possible that this mightn't actually be the case...
The EU might conclude that granting further concessions to the UK will do it more harm than inconveniencing one of its peripheral members, and just tell us to sod off regardless.
There will be more resignations. It’s not too hard to work out who either.
Do you have your eye on anyone senior?
I count 27 MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are still in a government position.
To put that in context, just 11 MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are still in Parliament who are on the backbenches have declared for the deal. Work out for yourself how many of those 27 are comfortable with it.
Could you give us the missing piece of data (number of leave voters on backbenches) so we can extrapolate correctly from the 11 supporters?
I’m not on the computer with my research but ISTR there are 81 Conservative MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are against the deal and a further 11 backbench Conservative MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who have not yet declared their intentions.
Aside from a few edge cases such as Soubry and Grieve, Tory remainers seem much happier with the deal than Tory leavers.
Would be consistent with your previously published thesis, which I find convincing.
If we do have a Conservative leadership contest then I wonder how quickly they can get it done? I'm assuming here that there's not going to be another coronation this time...
There will be more resignations. It’s not too hard to work out who either.
Do you have your eye on anyone senior?
I count 27 MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are still in a government position.
To put that in context, just 11 MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are still in Parliament who are on the backbenches have declared for the deal. Work out for yourself how many of those 27 are comfortable with it.
Could you give us the missing piece of data (number of leave voters on backbenches) so we can extrapolate correctly from the 11 supporters?
I’m not on the computer with my research but ISTR there are 81 Conservative MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are against the deal and a further 11 backbench Conservative MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who have not yet declared their intentions.
Aside from a few edge cases such as Soubry and Grieve, Tory remainers seem much happier with the deal than Tory leavers.
The government agreed the backstop last December and if it was a deal breaker they shouldn’t have agreed it then .
May has only herself to blame for kicking all the hard decisions into the long grass . And if the ERG are confident that tech solutions can sort the border issue why fear the backstop .
We can conclude that they’re just lying and have no solution apart from Believe In Brexit! The new mantra for the fantasists .
Insist that we can't sign one with one. Call their bluff. While giving a face-saving commitment to in all good faith work together to ensure there is never a hard border in Ireland.
Ireland do not want a hard border. That's the whole point of the backstop. A no deal Brexit is the last thing they want.
This assumes that the EU as an institution is more interested in helping to resolve the Republic of Ireland's problems than it is in using the Republic of Ireland's problems as leverage. It is just possible that this mightn't actually be the case...
The EU might conclude that granting further concessions to the UK will do it more harm than inconveniencing one of its peripheral members, and just tell us to sod off regardless.
The odds of that happening are 0.0%
The EU is only backing the backstop at the insistence of Varadkar. Until he took over it didn't exist and we were working on an alternative (and smarter and mutually respectful) solution.
If there is a humiliating defeat for this deal and Varadkar stares into the abyss and decides to step back from it then the EU can't and won't be able to stand in the way. It's only because of him they've gotten into this mess.
If "the peripheral member" spoke on TV and said he'd reached a new agreement with the UK on the border issue, that would be the end of it. The EU couldn't plausibly stand in its way.
Varadkar refusing to back down is plausible but if we're strong enough ultimately unlikely. Varadkar backing down and Barnier and others refusing to is not.
Would be consistent with your previously published thesis, which I find convincing.
If we do have a Conservative leadership contest then I wonder how quickly they can get it done? I'm assuming here that there's not going to be another coronation this time...
There wasn't a 'coronation' last time. The last occasion the Tories had an unopposed succession was 2003 and before that 1955.
What did happen last time is that the question was not put to the membership. If that were to happen again and if one candidate won overwhelming backing it seems possible, it could be done inside ten days.
There will be more resignations. It’s not too hard to work out who either.
Do you have your eye on anyone senior?
I count 27 MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are still in a government position.
To put that in context, just 11 MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are still in Parliament who are on the backbenches have declared for the deal. Work out for yourself how many of those 27 are comfortable with it.
Could you give us the missing piece of data (number of leave voters on backbenches) so we can extrapolate correctly from the 11 supporters?
I’m not on the computer with my research but ISTR there are 81 Conservative MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are against the deal and a further 11 backbench Conservative MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who have not yet declared their intentions.
Aside from a few edge cases such as Soubry and Grieve, Tory remainers seem much happier with the deal than Tory leavers.
Next question: if there's a leadership contest, can the Leavers field a single, convincing candidate and find the requisite one-third of MPs plus one to guarantee them a place in the run-off?
If they can then the biggest hurdle to a Hard Brexit is cleared. If the party members are made to choose between two Remainers then I think a lot of them will burn their cards.
There will be more resignations. It’s not too hard to work out who either.
Do you have your eye on anyone senior?
I count 27 MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are still in a government position.
To put that in context, just 11 MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are still in Parliament who are on the backbenches have declared for the deal. Work out for yourself how many of those 27 are comfortable with it.
Could you give us the missing piece of data (number of leave voters on backbenches) so we can extrapolate correctly from the 11 supporters?
I’m not on the computer with my research but ISTR there are 81 Conservative MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are against the deal and a further 11 backbench Conservative MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who have not yet declared their intentions.
Thanks - so you could easily be looking at 15-20 more Government resignations if they reach the reasonable conclusion that loyalty has no further benefit to their careers, and in particular to their chances of being appointed to the next leader’s government (some time next week).
The government agreed the backstop last December and if it was a deal breaker they shouldn’t have agreed it then .
May has only herself to blame for kicking all the hard decisions into the long grass . And if the ERG are confident that tech solutions can sort the border issue why fear the backstop .
We can conclude that they’re just lying and have no solution apart from Believe In Brexit! The new mantra for the fantasists .
We agreed the principle of a backstop but disagreed in practice with what it meant.
Tech solutions can sort out the border issue so long as both parties are relying upon getting the tech solutions working. Necessity is the mother of invention. If one party doesn't want technology to work then it won't.
Would be consistent with your previously published thesis, which I find convincing.
If we do have a Conservative leadership contest then I wonder how quickly they can get it done? I'm assuming here that there's not going to be another coronation this time...
Would be consistent with your previously published thesis, which I find convincing.
If we do have a Conservative leadership contest then I wonder how quickly they can get it done? I'm assuming here that there's not going to be another coronation this time...
There wasn't a 'coronation' last time. The last occasion the Tories had an unopposed succession was 2003 and before that 1955.
What did happen last time is that the question was not put to the membership. If that were to happen again and if one candidate won overwhelming backing it seems possible, it could be done inside ten days.
Sorry, what I was trying to get at was that Leadsom dropped out and let May be elected unopposed, of course. I would've assumed that this sort of thing would be unlikely to happen twice in a row. Therefore, how long will it take them (especially with the holidays in the way) to get the membership ballot over and done with, does anyone know?
It does the seem the only framework for a quick way forward. Resign as leader of the party due to party’s refusal to support, sack any ministers that won’t support her next steps, and then propose a referendum on deal vs remain with a request for 6 month extension to A50 to allow the referendum to take place. You can then imagine the absurd situation of the leadership of the Conservative and Labour parties opposing the referendum bill but enough backbenchers rebelling to get it through.
Would any Conservative wishing to continue in her cabinet have to resign from the party?
Would be consistent with your previously published thesis, which I find convincing.
If we do have a Conservative leadership contest then I wonder how quickly they can get it done? I'm assuming here that there's not going to be another coronation this time...
There wasn't a 'coronation' last time. The last occasion the Tories had an unopposed succession was 2003 and before that 1955.
What did happen last time is that the question was not put to the membership. If that were to happen again and if one candidate won overwhelming backing it seems possible, it could be done inside ten days.
Sorry, what I was trying to get at was that Leadsom dropped out and let May be elected unopposed, of course. I would've assumed that this sort of thing would be unlikely to happen twice in a row. Therefore, how long will it take them (especially with the holidays in the way) to get the membership ballot over and done with, does anyone know?
At least an extra month. But remember for the Tories the power base of a leader is the PCP, not the membership. Ultimately the members are quite a minor feature of the contest and will certainly be ignored if the PCP finds it expedient.
Given that there is an EU27 summit just two days after Tuesday's vote, my expectation is that Theresa May will at least try to hang on to get some kind of change to the deal (in particular the backstop). I'm sure that the EU27 will offer some kind of 'clarification' or helpful statement that the backstop is only intended to be temporary, but that's unlikely to be enough.
A Northern Ireland referendum on triggering the backstop or unification could be a solution. It almost certainly creates a GE if even proposed by the Tories though.
I don’t think the DUP would sign up to that. At present they’re sitting pretty electorally, and NI’s unique demographics mean that will continue into the medium term. A backstop referendum, however, would plausibly see them defeated. Current polling appears to suggest that NI public opinion is much less hardline on the backstop than the DUP position.
Would be consistent with your previously published thesis, which I find convincing.
If we do have a Conservative leadership contest then I wonder how quickly they can get it done? I'm assuming here that there's not going to be another coronation this time...
There wasn't a 'coronation' last time. The last occasion the Tories had an unopposed succession was 2003 and before that 1955.
What did happen last time is that the question was not put to the membership. If that were to happen again and if one candidate won overwhelming backing it seems possible, it could be done inside ten days.
Sorry, what I was trying to get at was that Leadsom dropped out and let May be elected unopposed, of course. I would've assumed that this sort of thing would be unlikely to happen twice in a row. Therefore, how long will it take them (especially with the holidays in the way) to get the membership ballot over and done with, does anyone know?
Are the holidays in the way?
There needs to be a time gap to get ballots out etc and to allow for them to be returned. Nothing will be done while the holidays are happening anyway in Westminster otherwise so its the perfect time to have part of the campaign in. Set a short ballot period for members to return ballots first week of January and we can then see in a New Year with a new government and a new purpose to seek a new deal.
Would be consistent with your previously published thesis, which I find convincing.
If we do have a Conservative leadership contest then I wonder how quickly they can get it done? I'm assuming here that there's not going to be another coronation this time...
As others have said, great to see you back.
That's kind of you to say. I needed the extended break. Trying not to take the whole thing too seriously this time around.
Change of circumstances helps. Am now reasonably confident that I'll end up poor rather than totally destitute if Corbyn chases my employer abroad and wrecks my career. A degree of security makes it a lot easier not to worry about all the crap that's going on at the moment - which one can do exactly nothing to influence, after all.
The final two in a leadership contest will be Gove v Raab .
Gove in the final round will have over 200 MPs backing him , that will be the more moderate wing plus Tory Remainers.
It’s a case of a snake versus a moron . I’d go for the snake Gove who hasn’t as yet become a delusional no dealer .
The only thing that could persuade me to vote for Corbyn is if the alternative is Gove.
Very funny ! Gove is a backstabbing snake but at least has a grip on reality . The problem for any leadership is the timeframe .
If it’s a coronation you might get it done quickly but if it’s not it spills well into January , what happens to the negotiations ? If any new PM even suggests they’re going for a no deal it will be all out war in the Tory party !
Would be consistent with your previously published thesis, which I find convincing.
If we do have a Conservative leadership contest then I wonder how quickly they can get it done? I'm assuming here that there's not going to be another coronation this time...
There wasn't a 'coronation' last time. The last occasion the Tories had an unopposed succession was 2003 and before that 1955.
What did happen last time is that the question was not put to the membership. If that were to happen again and if one candidate won overwhelming backing it seems possible, it could be done inside ten days.
Sorry, what I was trying to get at was that Leadsom dropped out and let May be elected unopposed, of course. I would've assumed that this sort of thing would be unlikely to happen twice in a row. Therefore, how long will it take them (especially with the holidays in the way) to get the membership ballot over and done with, does anyone know?
At least an extra month. But remember for the Tories the power base of a leader is the PCP, not the membership. Ultimately the members are quite a minor feature of the contest and will certainly be ignored if the PCP finds it expedient.
Hmmm... give them a rubbish choice and the Tory party may soon become an exercise in finding out how few members you need to keep it going, before its machinery starts to seize up.
Actually, that is an interesting question. You can presumably run a reasonably effective national party nowadays with a few clever PR men in an office, but at what point will it start to become incapable of fielding sufficient (or suitable) electoral candidates, especially for Local Government?
The Conservatives are smaller than the SNP. They could end up smaller than the Liberal Democrats at this rate. That would be somewhat embarrassing.
The final two in a leadership contest will be Gove v Raab .
Gove in the final round will have over 200 MPs backing him , that will be the more moderate wing plus Tory Remainers.
It’s a case of a snake versus a moron . I’d go for the snake Gove who hasn’t as yet become a delusional no dealer .
The only thing that could persuade me to vote for Corbyn is if the alternative is Gove.
Very funny ! Gove is a backstabbing snake but at least has a grip on reality . The problem for any leadership is the timeframe .
If it’s a coronation you might get it done quickly but if it’s not it spills well into January , what happens to the negotiations ? If any new PM even suggests they’re going for a no deal it will be all out war in the Tory party !
He really hasn't.
And what negotiations would these be? The EU have said there won't be any.
The final two in a leadership contest will be Gove v Raab .
Gove in the final round will have over 200 MPs backing him , that will be the more moderate wing plus Tory Remainers.
It’s a case of a snake versus a moron . I’d go for the snake Gove who hasn’t as yet become a delusional no dealer .
The only thing that could persuade me to vote for Corbyn is if the alternative is Gove.
Very funny ! Gove is a backstabbing snake but at least has a grip on reality . The problem for any leadership is the timeframe .
If it’s a coronation you might get it done quickly but if it’s not it spills well into January , what happens to the negotiations ? If any new PM even suggests they’re going for a no deal it will be all out war in the Tory party !
That suggests the May tactic has been pretty successful: it’s too late to challenge her, too late to have another election. So all that she now needs to do is come up with something that can get majority support in the commons, and it’s job done, no matter how much her party hate it. Neither her backbenchers nor Labour can risk being blamed for causing a general election at this point.
The final two in a leadership contest will be Gove v Raab .
Gove in the final round will have over 200 MPs backing him , that will be the more moderate wing plus Tory Remainers.
It’s a case of a snake versus a moron . I’d go for the snake Gove who hasn’t as yet become a delusional no dealer .
The only thing that could persuade me to vote for Corbyn is if the alternative is Gove.
Very funny ! Gove is a backstabbing snake but at least has a grip on reality . The problem for any leadership is the timeframe .
If it’s a coronation you might get it done quickly but if it’s not it spills well into January , what happens to the negotiations ? If any new PM even suggests they’re going for a no deal it will be all out war in the Tory party !
That suggests the May tactic has been pretty successful: it’s too late to challenge her, too late to have another election. So all that she now needs to do is come up with something that can get majority support in the commons, and it’s job done, no matter how much her party hate it. Neither her backbenchers nor Labour can risk being blamed for causing a general election at this point.
My view is the bond of trust between May and her MP's has gone. Hence the request for the legal advice to be published in full. This vote is now not about the deal it is about May. She is toast.
The final two in a leadership contest will be Gove v Raab .
Gove in the final round will have over 200 MPs backing him , that will be the more moderate wing plus Tory Remainers.
It’s a case of a snake versus a moron . I’d go for the snake Gove who hasn’t as yet become a delusional no dealer .
The only thing that could persuade me to vote for Corbyn is if the alternative is Gove.
Very funny ! Gove is a backstabbing snake but at least has a grip on reality . The problem for any leadership is the timeframe .
If it’s a coronation you might get it done quickly but if it’s not it spills well into January , what happens to the negotiations ? If any new PM even suggests they’re going for a no deal it will be all out war in the Tory party !
That suggests the May tactic has been pretty successful: it’s too late to challenge her, too late to have another election. So all that she now needs to do is come up with something that can get majority support in the commons, and it’s job done, no matter how much her party hate it. Neither her backbenchers nor Labour can risk being blamed for causing a general election at this point.
My view is the bond of trust between May and her MP's has gone. Hence the request for the legal advice to be published in full. This vote is now not about the deal it is about May. She is toast.
I think it’s about both. There’s a lot not to like in the deal even for those who generally trust and respect May still. And while she may not have been exactly toast until now, she’s been at the warm and increasingly crispy bread stage for at least 14 months. But regardless of trust she possibly has a lot of power right now because of the apparent irresponsibility or moving against her, whether within the party or within the Commons.
What is is with the ERG that they seem so intellectually challenged.
It's that you strongly disagree with them.
Threatening Ireland with food shortages is crass
Given Ireland's history I agree. It's possible to be crass and intellectual at the same time though and that view is probably not shared by most of the ERG anyway.
The final two in a leadership contest will be Gove v Raab .
Gove in the final round will have over 200 MPs backing him , that will be the more moderate wing plus Tory Remainers.
It’s a case of a snake versus a moron . I’d go for the snake Gove who hasn’t as yet become a delusional no dealer .
The only thing that could persuade me to vote for Corbyn is if the alternative is Gove.
Very funny ! Gove is a backstabbing snake but at least has a grip on reality . The problem for any leadership is the timeframe .
If it’s a coronation you might get it done quickly but if it’s not it spills well into January , what happens to the negotiations ? If any new PM even suggests they’re going for a no deal it will be all out war in the Tory party !
The ideal candidate for the leadership would be:
*Credible as a Prime Minister - almost certainly of, or formerly of, cabinet rank, given the need to hit the ground running. Capable of being taken seriously. Not Boris. *Acceptable to, and capable of being trusted by, both wings of the party - ideally with some Brexiteer sympathies, but not a hard radical. Not a committed Remainer either. Not Rudd. Not Gove. *Have the correct Brexit approach - I would suggest a commitment to go back to the EU for something better first (the Irish backstop has to go, or else the DUP will revolt and the Government is finished anyway,) but start preparations for No Deal immediately. Then, promise to switch to a managed No Deal if negotiations are refused or prove fruitless.
If such an individual makes it to the run-off then they'll carry the membership by a country mile in a straight fight with any candidate favouring a soft Brexit or a referendum. The opponent might even back down and save the party and the country the trouble of the vote.
An approach that tries to placate Remainers first and then backs No Deal if no progress can be made is best for keeping the party together and the Government on the road. Enraged Pro-EU MPs can only flounce and stand any chance of success if they can persuade Labour moderates to do so at the same time, and work with them: under such circumstances they would be powerless to avert Brexit without a change of Government. Even then, their medium-term outlook as a cohort would be uncertain to put it mildly.
If, on the other hand, a split Tory party faces a united Labour in a General Election then it would probably be devastated - but the Pro-EU MPs would presumably get wiped out almost to the last man and woman (remember, the bulk of the Tory vote consists of Leavers.) They'd be turkeys voting for Christmas: out of jobs, having just let in a socialist Government to boot.
The final two in a leadership contest will be Gove v Raab .
Gove in the final round will have over 200 MPs backing him , that will be the more moderate wing plus Tory Remainers.
It’s a case of a snake versus a moron . I’d go for the snake Gove who hasn’t as yet become a delusional no dealer .
The only thing that could persuade me to vote for Corbyn is if the alternative is Gove.
Very funny ! Gove is a backstabbing snake but at least has a grip on reality . The problem for any leadership is the timeframe .
If it’s a coronation you might get it done quickly but if it’s not it spills well into January , what happens to the negotiations ? If any new PM even suggests they’re going for a no deal it will be all out war in the Tory party !
That suggests the May tactic has been pretty successful: it’s too late to challenge her, too late to have another election. So all that she now needs to do is come up with something that can get majority support in the commons, and it’s job done, no matter how much her party hate it. Neither her backbenchers nor Labour can risk being blamed for causing a general election at this point.
Yes - a theatrical last minute negotiation and an EU concession should seal it. At least I bloody well hope so!
What is is with the ERG that they seem so intellectually challenged.
It's that you strongly disagree with them.
Threatening Ireland with food shortages is crass
Given Ireland's history I agree. It's possible to be crass and intellectual at the same time though and that view is probably not shared by most of the ERG anyway.
It is, but not a trick Pritti is capable of pulling off.
The final two in a leadership contest will be Gove v Raab .
Gove in the final round will have over 200 MPs backing him , that will be the more moderate wing plus Tory Remainers.
It’s a case of a snake versus a moron . I’d go for the snake Gove who hasn’t as yet become a delusional no dealer .
The only thing that could persuade me to vote for Corbyn is if the alternative is Gove.
Very funny ! Gove is a backstabbing snake but at least has a grip on reality . The problem for any leadership is the timeframe .
If it’s a coronation you might get it done quickly but if it’s not it spills well into January , what happens to the negotiations ? If any new PM even suggests they’re going for a no deal it will be all out war in the Tory party !
That suggests the May tactic has been pretty successful: it’s too late to challenge her, too late to have another election. So all that she now needs to do is come up with something that can get majority support in the commons, and it’s job done, no matter how much her party hate it. Neither her backbenchers nor Labour can risk being blamed for causing a general election at this point.
Yes - a theatrical last minute negotiation and an EU concession should seal it. At least I bloody well hope so!
If the backstop is the political equivalent of Atwood's duck I will chew my own elbow off.
Everything everybody is saying is based on the.assumption that May will resign. But historically she has not done so, even when she should have.
No, there are assumptions if she does not resign she will be removed. There are no reasons not to anymore. To stay in post May will need to say she will renegotiate, at the least, so more letters may as well go in since leading Cabinet Members are already leaking they are going to come up with plan Bs.
The final two in a leadership contest will be Gove v Raab .
Gove in the final round will have over 200 MPs backing him , that will be the more moderate wing plus Tory Remainers.
It’s a case of a snake versus a moron . I’d go for the snake Gove who hasn’t as yet become a delusional no dealer .
The only thing that could persuade me to vote for Corbyn is if the alternative is Gove.
Very funny ! Gove is a backstabbing snake but at least has a grip on reality . The problem for any leadership is the timeframe .
If it’s a coronation you might get it done quickly but if it’s not it spills well into January , what happens to the negotiations ? If any new PM even suggests they’re going for a no deal it will be all out war in the Tory party !
That suggests the May tactic has been pretty successful: it’s too late to challenge her, too late to have another election. So all that she now needs to do is come up with something that can get majority support in the commons, and it’s job done, no matter how much her party hate it. Neither her backbenchers nor Labour can risk being blamed for causing a general election at this point.
Yes - a theatrical last minute negotiation and an EU concession should seal it. At least I bloody well hope so!
What kind of concession? A tweak won't swing 50-70 votes in parliament, which is likely what is needed. I know we make fun of them a lot but plenty of the ERG and plenty of other people objecting, Labour and Tory, are not utter fools, and while some can probably be bought with a superficial concession, to get 50-70 requires something substantive.
The final two in a leadership contest will be Gove v Raab .
Gove in the final round will have over 200 MPs backing him , that will be the more moderate wing plus Tory Remainers.
It’s a case of a snake versus a moron . I’d go for the snake Gove who hasn’t as yet become a delusional no dealer .
The only thing that could persuade me to vote for Corbyn is if the alternative is Gove.
Very funny ! Gove is a backstabbing snake but at least has a grip on reality . The problem for any leadership is the timeframe .
If it’s a coronation you might get it done quickly but if it’s not it spills well into January , what happens to the negotiations ? If any new PM even suggests they’re going for a no deal it will be all out war in the Tory party !
That suggests the May tactic has been pretty successful: it’s too late to challenge her, too late to have another election. So all that she now needs to do is come up with something that can get majority support in the commons, and it’s job done, no matter how much her party hate it. Neither her backbenchers nor Labour can risk being blamed for causing a general election at this point.
My view is the bond of trust between May and her MP's has gone. Hence the request for the legal advice to be published in full. This vote is now not about the deal it is about May. She is toast.
I don't much care who is PM right now, that is a problem for later. If there are people who would vote for the deal but for the fact that May is PM, they are being hugely irresponsible.
As silly as it looks at first glance there's some possible sense to it. Ok she'll have carried the majority of her MPs in this vote at least (though for how much longer who knows) but clearly she would not be able to lead with any authority after such an abject humiliation. However if she were to resign as PM she is supposed to say who will replace her, and there are no clear interim leaders who would be agreed on for the Tories and Corbyn would struggle to command a majority in the house as well.
I do feel kind of sorry for her though. Yes she asked for the job and has caused plenty of her own problems, but for some while now, and particularly acutely in recent weeks, it has been clear she has no authority left (Cabinet ministers are by name quoted in papers with their own plans in opposition to her), and so even if it is reasonable, in this strained times, to remain as PM in that situation, she will be pilloried for it. Whether she will ultimately deserve all the opprobrium that she will be on the receiving end of will depend a little on who replaces her and what they get (though I doubt she will be praised regardless), but it's going to be a bitter Christmas either way.
Everything everybody is saying is based on the.assumption that May will resign. But historically she has not done so, even when she should have.
You are absolutely right to remind us of this. If May insists on digging her heels in hard then she could still be very difficult to shift.
That said, if the deal is heavily defeated then (a) I don't see what she has left to offer in terms of Brexit, (b) what authority does she have left to govern, and (c) if she doesn't jump she risks ending up facing a concerted attempt to push her, which would be very undignified.
When most of the Parliamentary Labour Party tried to rid themselves of Corbyn then he could point at the mass membership and say that they loved him. May would end up unwanted by both her MPs and her members. Would she, under those circumstances, choose to trudge on miserably out of blind stubbornness? Maybe. But why?
Everything everybody is saying is based on the.assumption that May will resign. But historically she has not done so, even when she should have.
You are absolutely right to remind us of this. If May insists on digging her heels in hard then she could still be very difficult to shift.
That said, if the deal is heavily defeated then (a) I don't see what she has left to offer in terms of Brexit, (b) what authority does she have left to govern, and (c) if she doesn't jump she risks ending up facing a concerted attempt to push her, which would be very undignified.
When most of the Parliamentary Labour Party tried to rid themselves of Corbyn then he could point at the mass membership and say that they loved him. May would end up unwanted by both her MPs and her members. Would she, under those circumstances, choose to trudge on miserably out of blind stubbornness? Maybe. But why?
I think she’ll resign. HYUFD and I have a £20 ‘money to PB infrastructure fund’ bet on just that....
As silly as it looks at first glance there's some possible sense to it. Ok she'll have carried the majority of her MPs in this vote at least (though for how much longer who knows) but clearly she would not be able to lead with any authority after such an abject humiliation. However if she were to resign as PM she is supposed to say who will replace her, and there are no clear interim leaders who would be agreed on for the Tories and Corbyn would struggle to command a majority in the house as well.
I do feel kind of sorry for her though. Yes she asked for the job and has caused plenty of her own problems, but for some while now, and particularly acutely in recent weeks, it has been clear she has no authority left (Cabinet ministers are by name quoted in papers with their own plans in opposition to her), and so even if it is reasonable, in this strained times, to remain as PM in that situation, she will be pilloried for it. Whether she will ultimately deserve all the opprobrium that she will be on the receiving end of will depend a little on who replaces her and what they get (though I doubt she will be praised regardless), but it's going to be a bitter Christmas either way.
May could stay in post as suggested by the tweet, or she could nominate Lidington as a caretaker. I guess it doesn't make too much difference which.
It is my understanding that May repeated Cameron's (deliberate?) mistake and failed to plan properly for No Deal. That is inexcusable. I've no sympathy at all.
Insist that we can't sign one with one. Call their bluff. While giving a face-saving commitment to in all good faith work together to ensure there is never a hard border in Ireland.
Ireland do not want a hard border. That's the whole point of the backstop. A no deal Brexit is the last thing they want.
This assumes that the EU as an institution is more interested in helping to resolve the Republic of Ireland's problems than it is in using the Republic of Ireland's problems as leverage. It is just possible that this mightn't actually be the case...
The EU might conclude that granting further concessions to the UK will do it more harm than inconveniencing one of its peripheral members, and just tell us to sod off regardless.
The odds of that happening are 0.0%
The EU is only backing the backstop at the insistence of Varadkar. Until he took over it didn't exist and we were working on an alternative (and smarter and mutually respectful) solution.
If there is a humiliating defeat for this deal and Varadkar stares into the abyss and decides to step back from it then the EU can't and won't be able to stand in the way. It's only because of him they've gotten into this mess.
If "the peripheral member" spoke on TV and said he'd reached a new agreement with the UK on the border issue, that would be the end of it. The EU couldn't plausibly stand in its way.
Varadkar refusing to back down is plausible but if we're strong enough ultimately unlikely. Varadkar backing down and Barnier and others refusing to is not.
Varadkar won’t back down because he’ll get mullered by SF
Everything everybody is saying is based on the.assumption that May will resign. But historically she has not done so, even when she should have.
You are absolutely right to remind us of this. If May insists on digging her heels in hard then she could still be very difficult to shift.
That said, if the deal is heavily defeated then (a) I don't see what she has left to offer in terms of Brexit, (b) what authority does she have left to govern, and (c) if she doesn't jump she risks ending up facing a concerted attempt to push her, which would be very undignified.
When most of the Parliamentary Labour Party tried to rid themselves of Corbyn then he could point at the mass membership and say that they loved him. May would end up unwanted by both her MPs and her members. Would she, under those circumstances, choose to trudge on miserably out of blind stubbornness? Maybe. But why?
Well indeed. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that she is absolutely right that her deal is the only game in town and the EU is not, despite what Mr Prodi says, going to renegotiate, and that the deal is even pretty good. It won't matter because she cannot get it passed, and even if her MPs don't remove her she cannot very well simply ignore what parliament has just said and try to get them to reconsider.
Her staying on is not going to improve matters, it is not going to help reach a resolution. A new leader has no guarantee of doing either, but she certainly cannot.
Everything everybody is saying is based on the.assumption that May will resign. But historically she has not done so, even when she should have.
You are absolutely right to remind us of this. If May insists on digging her heels in hard then she could still be very difficult to shift.
That said, if the deal is heavily defeated then (a) I don't see what she has left to offer in terms of Brexit, (b) what authority does she have left to govern, and (c) if she doesn't jump she risks ending up facing a concerted attempt to push her, which would be very undignified.
When most of the Parliamentary Labour Party tried to rid themselves of Corbyn then he could point at the mass membership and say that they loved him. May would end up unwanted by both her MPs and her members. Would she, under those circumstances, choose to trudge on miserably out of blind stubbornness? Maybe. But why?
I think she’ll resign. HYUFD and I have a £20 ‘money to PB infrastructure fund’ bet on just that....
I also think she'll resign, but it doesn't do to count one's chickens.
I have a scientific background. Saying anything is either certain or impossible is a big deal. I try to remember only to do it with great care.
As silly as it looks at first glance there's some possible sense to it. Ok she'll have carried the majority of her MPs in this vote at least (though for how much longer who knows) but clearly she would not be able to lead with any authority after such an abject humiliation. However if she were to resign as PM she is supposed to say who will replace her, and there are no clear interim leaders who would be agreed on for the Tories and Corbyn would struggle to command a majority in the house as well.
I do feel kind of sorry for her though. Yes she asked for the job and has caused plenty of her own problems, but for some while now, and particularly acutely in recent weeks, it has been clear she has no authority left (Cabinet ministers are by name quoted in papers with their own plans in opposition to her), and so even if it is reasonable, in this strained times, to remain as PM in that situation, she will be pilloried for it. Whether she will ultimately deserve all the opprobrium that she will be on the receiving end of will depend a little on who replaces her and what they get (though I doubt she will be praised regardless), but it's going to be a bitter Christmas either way.
May could stay in post as suggested by the tweet, or she could nominate Lidington as a caretaker. I guess it doesn't make too much difference which.
It is my understanding that May repeated Cameron's (deliberate?) mistake and failed to plan properly for No Deal. That is inexcusable. I've no sympathy at all.
I don't have an issue having sympathy for someone and criticising them heavily at the same time. She's made many mistakes and, in what is granted a very difficult task, not shown leadership that is needed (failing to make a decision until Chequers for a start). And as you say not preparing for no deal. That doesn't prevent me from having sympathy about the aspects that were outside her control, or where others are being unreasonable, or at her personal situation where she is now, if too late, clearly working hard on something she believes to be the best option and facing vicious attacks (see accusations of treason etc) for doing so.
Everything everybody is saying is based on the.assumption that May will resign. But historically she has not done so, even when she should have.
You are absolutely right to remind us of this. If May insists on digging her heels in hard then she could still be very difficult to shift.
That said, if the deal is heavily defeated then (a) I don't see what she has left to offer in terms of Brexit, (b) what authority does she have left to govern, and (c) if she doesn't jump she risks ending up facing a concerted attempt to push her, which would be very undignified.
When most of the Parliamentary Labour Party tried to rid themselves of Corbyn then he could point at the mass membership and say that they loved him. May would end up unwanted by both her MPs and her members. Would she, under those circumstances, choose to trudge on miserably out of blind stubbornness? Maybe. But why?
I think she’ll resign. HYUFD and I have a £20 ‘money to PB infrastructure fund’ bet on just that....
I also think she'll resign, but it doesn't do to count one's chickens.
I have a scientific background. Saying anything is either certain or impossible is a big deal. I try to remember only to do it with great care.
How is having an election now for the good of the country? Parliament needs to get a grip and make a decision, not seek to place it on the shoulders of a new parliament of uncertain composition, which would have a commitment to do god knows what since both main parties will have vague at best Brexit policies.
No, parliament doesn't get its new election until after they sort this shit out.
I certainly do not believe that what is good for party A is in itself a good thing for the country, and her remaining as PM is, despite my earlier comment, unlikely to help matters at all, but an action to avoid an election at this stage is good for the country even if it is coincidentally good for the party (and frankly I'm not sure why that it would be - yes they would get hammered in an election right now, but resolving brexit is the best thing for the party and the country).
How is having an election now for the good of the country? Parliament needs to get a grip and make a decision, not seek to place it on the shoulders of a new parliament of uncertain composition, which would have a commitment to do god knows what since both main parties will have vague at best Brexit policies.
No, parliament doesn't get its new election until after they sort this shit out.
The Tory Party will hold its own election in lieu of the country to cling on to power after screwing up. Either that or a stitch up. Either way not good
I don’t think May can stay if her deal is rejected. Assuming the leadership vote progresses to the membership stage, the winning candidate will be the one that refuses a referendum and confirms that No Deal is an option. Assuming that leads to 20 Tory MPs abandoning the whip, they will then have a choice between putting Corbyn into Number 10 in the vain hope of obtaining a referendum, or triggering an election that will see them lose their seats.
Everything everybody is saying is based on the.assumption that May will resign. But historically she has not done so, even when she should have.
You are absolutely right to remind us of this. If May insists on digging her heels in hard then she could still be very difficult to shift.
That said, if the deal is heavily defeated then (a) I don't see what she has left to offer in terms of Brexit, (b) what authority does she have left to govern, and (c) if she doesn't jump she risks ending up facing a concerted attempt to push her, which would be very undignified.
When most of the Parliamentary Labour Party tried to rid themselves of Corbyn then he could point at the mass membership and say that they loved him. May would end up unwanted by both her MPs and her members. Would she, under those circumstances, choose to trudge on miserably out of blind stubbornness? Maybe. But why?
I think she’ll resign. HYUFD and I have a £20 ‘money to PB infrastructure fund’ bet on just that....
I also think she'll resign, but it doesn't do to count one's chickens.
I have a scientific background. Saying anything is either certain or impossible is a big deal. I try to remember only to do it with great care.
Torygraph also reporting that the plan to get rid of May is to leverage an expected VONC from Lab and SNP. May will lose this which means that the Torys have 14 days to get a new leader to get the confidence of The House. Means can not go to the members.
I don’t think May can stay if her deal is rejected. Assuming the leadership vote progresses to the membership stage, the winning candidate will be the one that refuses a referendum and confirms that No Deal is an option. Assuming that leads to 20 Tory MPs abandoning the whip, they will then have a choice between putting Corbyn into Number 10 in the vain hope of obtaining a referendum, or triggering an election that will see them lose their seats.
Thus we totter towards Hard Brexit.
The person who commands the Conservative party might not be able to command the Commons. In those circumstances Jeremy Corbyn may well not be the only or even the likeliest option.
How is having an election now for the good of the country? Parliament needs to get a grip and make a decision, not seek to place it on the shoulders of a new parliament of uncertain composition, which would have a commitment to do god knows what since both main parties will have vague at best Brexit policies.
No, parliament doesn't get its new election until after they sort this shit out.
The Tory Party will hold its own election in lieu of the country to cling on to power after screwing up. Either that or a stitch up. Either way not good
If the plan is for her to stay on as PM, and parliament lets it happen (given the DUP could see a vote of no confidence pass), it would have to be on the basis she was doing something parliament as a whole wanted, eg going back to renegotiate, even as the Tories selected their own leader. If that was not the case it would indeed be a terrible piece of recklessness, pausing Brexit for however long a Tory contest and a new brexit position would take. And parliament surely would not permit that, including the DUP. So this must presume she goes back to the EU and goes "You say what happened - I'm PM but no longer leader of my party because of how bad the deal was. You want it to happen? Give me something more, believe me this is not about saving my own skin"
How is having an election now for the good of the country? Parliament needs to get a grip and make a decision, not seek to place it on the shoulders of a new parliament of uncertain composition, which would have a commitment to do god knows what since both main parties will have vague at best Brexit policies.
No, parliament doesn't get its new election until after they sort this shit out.
The Tory Party will hold its own election in lieu of the country to cling on to power after screwing up. Either that or a stitch up. Either way not good
If the plan is for her to stay on as PM, and parliament lets it happen (given the DUP could see a vote of no confidence pass), it would have to be on the basis she was doing something parliament as a whole wanted, eg going back to renegotiate, even as the Tories selected their own leader. If that was not the case it would indeed be a terrible piece of recklessness, pausing Brexit for however long a Tory contest and a new brexit position would take. And parliament surely would not permit that, including the DUP. So this must presume she goes back to the EU and goes "You say what happened - I'm PM but no longer leader of my party because of how bad the deal was. You want it to happen? Give me something more, believe me this is not about saving my own skin"
If she is serious about that she should have non Tories in the cabinet. This should not be about ‘keeping out Corbyn ‘.
If I were guessing, I’d guess Geoffrey Cox is the Cabinet minister deciding whether to resign. He’s the one who could do so with some credibility.
Torygraph say Mordaunt.
Seriously? It's lame and transparent for a PPS to resign at this stage, a Cabinet Member has no excuse, they have been given ample opportunity to decide if they can stomach this deal, going all the way back to Chequers. I would not believe her for a second if she claims she cannot in good conscience support the deal. Christ, whether you believe Raab about being hoodwinked or not at least he took action with some haste once it was finalised.
The final two in a leadership contest will be Gove v Raab .
Gove in the final round will have over 200 MPs backing him , that will be the more moderate wing plus Tory Remainers.
It’s a case of a snake versus a moron . I’d go for the snake Gove who hasn’t as yet become a delusional no dealer .
The only thing that could persuade me to vote for Corbyn is if the alternative is Gove.
But you are a teacher and teachers have a completely irrational hatred of Gove. As is shown by the fact you would prefer economic ruin under Corbyn.
There is nothing irrational about hating a man who made such a shambles of exam reform that the marking criteria had to be amended after the exams had been set, deliberately ignoring the advice of academic experts, and then lying about what they had said, promising extra money and failing to deliver it, and forcing us to teach a curriculum full of errors due to his insistence that his knowledge was supreme despite having a poor degree in a specialist subject, which one way and another left the average candidate score in History GCSEs last year at 27%. Or would you consider that a dazzling success?
As for economic ruin, he's quite capable of providing that on his own - or had you not noticed he's driven the entire university sector to the brink of bankruptcy by his crass market manipulation?
It is very telling I think that those who work most closely with him and see the results of his hubris at first hand hate him the most.
Torygraph also reporting that the plan to get rid of May is to leverage an expected VONC from Lab and SNP. May will lose this which means that the Torys have 14 days to get a new leader to get the confidence of The House. Means can not go to the members.
May would not lose a VONC in Parliament - no Tory MP would be likely to support it or abstain.
How is having an election now for the good of the country? Parliament needs to get a grip and make a decision, not seek to place it on the shoulders of a new parliament of uncertain composition, which would have a commitment to do god knows what since both main parties will have vague at best Brexit policies.
No, parliament doesn't get its new election until after they sort this shit out.
The Tory Party will hold its own election in lieu of the country to cling on to power after screwing up. Either that or a stitch up. Either way not good
If the plan is for her to stay on as PM, and parliament lets it happen (given the DUP could see a vote of no confidence pass), it would have to be on the basis she was doing something parliament as a whole wanted, eg going back to renegotiate, even as the Tories selected their own leader. If that was not the case it would indeed be a terrible piece of recklessness, pausing Brexit for however long a Tory contest and a new brexit position would take. And parliament surely would not permit that, including the DUP. So this must presume she goes back to the EU and goes "You say what happened - I'm PM but no longer leader of my party because of how bad the deal was. You want it to happen? Give me something more, believe me this is not about saving my own skin"
If she is serious about that she should have non Tories in the cabinet. This should not be about ‘keeping out Corbyn ‘.
Not sure what being in the Cabinet would do at this point. Perhaps what would be a better approach is stay on as PM but not Tory leader so the Tories can have their stupid little contest, and announce that she recognise most in the house want a renegotiation (ostensibly at any rate, I don't quite buy everyone means that), and as such she wants all party leaders to come with her to the EU summit so they can all negotiate together with the EU.
I don’t think May can stay if her deal is rejected. Assuming the leadership vote progresses to the membership stage, the winning candidate will be the one that refuses a referendum and confirms that No Deal is an option. Assuming that leads to 20 Tory MPs abandoning the whip, they will then have a choice between putting Corbyn into Number 10 in the vain hope of obtaining a referendum, or triggering an election that will see them lose their seats.
Thus we totter towards Hard Brexit.
The person who commands the Conservative party might not be able to command the Commons. In those circumstances Jeremy Corbyn may well not be the only or even the likeliest option.
I agree with your first sentence, but fundamentally disagree with the second. The Queen will not get drawn into picking prime ministers. It will be the leader of the Tory Party, or the Labour Party, as it has been since 1922.
Fundamentally I don’t believe those 20 Tory MPs will vote to put Corbyn into Downing Street. They might however trigger an election that could see him take office.
May could stay in post as suggested by the tweet, or she could nominate Lidington as a caretaker. I guess it doesn't make too much difference which.
It is my understanding that May repeated Cameron's (deliberate?) mistake and failed to plan properly for No Deal. That is inexcusable. I've no sympathy at all.
I don't have an issue having sympathy for someone and criticising them heavily at the same time. She's made many mistakes and, in what is granted a very difficult task, not shown leadership that is needed (failing to make a decision until Chequers for a start). And as you say not preparing for no deal. That doesn't prevent me from having sympathy about the aspects that were outside her control, or where others are being unreasonable, or at her personal situation where she is now, if too late, clearly working hard on something she believes to be the best option and facing vicious attacks (see accusations of treason etc) for doing so.
Hmmmm... on the one hand I get where you're coming from. Cameron dealt her a very tricky hand, and she has clearly worked very hard to get this deal sorted out.
On the other hand, not preparing the country properly for every likely eventuality was a gross dereliction of duty. I don't know what was going on in her head, of course, but it also looks suspiciously like an attempt to try to close off a Hard/Clean Brexit option and force the country to accept a very close relationship with the EU, on terms dictated by the EU. Especially given her position at the start of her leadership, that would be very deceitful.
I don't want to say anything else rude about the woman, because she has had an awful job to do and it is also quite possible that she thinks everything she has done has been genuinely for the best. However, I believe that she has acted very poorly.
Comments
https://twitter.com/StrategicNews1/status/1071451212011237377
Ireland do not want a hard border. That's the whole point of the backstop. A no deal Brexit is the last thing they want.
A council document said 39 asylum seekers sent to Liverpool by the Home Office in 2018 "have then claimed they were children".
They then tested all 39 and found 2/3 were adults. So no it isn't 2/3 of all children, but 2/3 of those that claimed they were after being sent to Liverpool registered as adults.
Does anyone care what this Tory non entity has to say .
To put that in context, just 11 MPs who voted Leave in 2016 who are still in Parliament who are on the backbenches have declared for the deal. Work out for yourself how many of those 27 are comfortable with it.
Aren't all Shadow positions technically unpaid apart from Leader of the Opposition? But Labour still has a 'payroll vote' too doesn't it, other than just Corbyn?
Do you think Ireland will just sit idly by and slide into a No Deal hard border?
The EU might conclude that granting further concessions to the UK will do it more harm than inconveniencing one of its peripheral members, and just tell us to sod off regardless.
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/1071499871339888642?s=21
If we do have a Conservative leadership contest then I wonder how quickly they can get it done? I'm assuming here that there's not going to be another coronation this time...
May has only herself to blame for kicking all the hard decisions into the long grass . And if the ERG are confident that tech solutions can sort the border issue why fear the backstop .
We can conclude that they’re just lying and have no solution apart from Believe In Brexit! The new mantra for the fantasists .
The EU is only backing the backstop at the insistence of Varadkar. Until he took over it didn't exist and we were working on an alternative (and smarter and mutually respectful) solution.
If there is a humiliating defeat for this deal and Varadkar stares into the abyss and decides to step back from it then the EU can't and won't be able to stand in the way. It's only because of him they've gotten into this mess.
If "the peripheral member" spoke on TV and said he'd reached a new agreement with the UK on the border issue, that would be the end of it. The EU couldn't plausibly stand in its way.
Varadkar refusing to back down is plausible but if we're strong enough ultimately unlikely. Varadkar backing down and Barnier and others refusing to is not.
What did happen last time is that the question was not put to the membership. If that were to happen again and if one candidate won overwhelming backing it seems possible, it could be done inside ten days.
If they can then the biggest hurdle to a Hard Brexit is cleared. If the party members are made to choose between two Remainers then I think a lot of them will burn their cards.
Tech solutions can sort out the border issue so long as both parties are relying upon getting the tech solutions working. Necessity is the mother of invention. If one party doesn't want technology to work then it won't.
It does the seem the only framework for a quick way forward. Resign as leader of the party due to party’s refusal to support, sack any ministers that won’t support her next steps, and then propose a referendum on deal vs remain with a request for 6 month extension to A50 to allow the referendum to take place. You can then imagine the absurd situation of the leadership of the Conservative and Labour parties opposing the referendum bill but enough backbenchers rebelling to get it through.
Would any Conservative wishing to continue in her cabinet have to resign from the party?
There needs to be a time gap to get ballots out etc and to allow for them to be returned. Nothing will be done while the holidays are happening anyway in Westminster otherwise so its the perfect time to have part of the campaign in. Set a short ballot period for members to return ballots first week of January and we can then see in a New Year with a new government and a new purpose to seek a new deal.
Change of circumstances helps. Am now reasonably confident that I'll end up poor rather than totally destitute if Corbyn chases my employer abroad and wrecks my career. A degree of security makes it a lot easier not to worry about all the crap that's going on at the moment - which one can do exactly nothing to influence, after all.
Gove in the final round will have over 200 MPs backing him , that will be the more moderate wing plus Tory Remainers.
It’s a case of a snake versus a moron . I’d go for the snake Gove who hasn’t as yet become a delusional no dealer .
If it’s a coronation you might get it done quickly but if it’s not it spills well into January , what happens to the negotiations ? If any new PM even suggests they’re going for a no deal it will be all out war in the Tory party !
Actually, that is an interesting question. You can presumably run a reasonably effective national party nowadays with a few clever PR men in an office, but at what point will it start to become incapable of fielding sufficient (or suitable) electoral candidates, especially for Local Government?
The Conservatives are smaller than the SNP. They could end up smaller than the Liberal Democrats at this rate. That would be somewhat embarrassing.
And what negotiations would these be? The EU have said there won't be any.
This vote is now not about the deal it is about May. She is toast.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/08/resigning-government-mays-brexit-deal-means-obeying-eu-rules/
*Credible as a Prime Minister - almost certainly of, or formerly of, cabinet rank, given the need to hit the ground running. Capable of being taken seriously. Not Boris.
*Acceptable to, and capable of being trusted by, both wings of the party - ideally with some Brexiteer sympathies, but not a hard radical. Not a committed Remainer either. Not Rudd. Not Gove.
*Have the correct Brexit approach - I would suggest a commitment to go back to the EU for something better first (the Irish backstop has to go, or else the DUP will revolt and the Government is finished anyway,) but start preparations for No Deal immediately. Then, promise to switch to a managed No Deal if negotiations are refused or prove fruitless.
If such an individual makes it to the run-off then they'll carry the membership by a country mile in a straight fight with any candidate favouring a soft Brexit or a referendum. The opponent might even back down and save the party and the country the trouble of the vote.
An approach that tries to placate Remainers first and then backs No Deal if no progress can be made is best for keeping the party together and the Government on the road. Enraged Pro-EU MPs can only flounce and stand any chance of success if they can persuade Labour moderates to do so at the same time, and work with them: under such circumstances they would be powerless to avert Brexit without a change of Government. Even then, their medium-term outlook as a cohort would be uncertain to put it mildly.
If, on the other hand, a split Tory party faces a united Labour in a General Election then it would probably be devastated - but the Pro-EU MPs would presumably get wiped out almost to the last man and woman (remember, the bulk of the Tory vote consists of Leavers.) They'd be turkeys voting for Christmas: out of jobs, having just let in a socialist Government to boot.
https://twitter.com/thairshaikh/status/1071511785625317378?s=21
I do feel kind of sorry for her though. Yes she asked for the job and has caused plenty of her own problems, but for some while now, and particularly acutely in recent weeks, it has been clear she has no authority left (Cabinet ministers are by name quoted in papers with their own plans in opposition to her), and so even if it is reasonable, in this strained times, to remain as PM in that situation, she will be pilloried for it. Whether she will ultimately deserve all the opprobrium that she will be on the receiving end of will depend a little on who replaces her and what they get (though I doubt she will be praised regardless), but it's going to be a bitter Christmas either way.
That said, if the deal is heavily defeated then (a) I don't see what she has left to offer in terms of Brexit, (b) what authority does she have left to govern, and (c) if she doesn't jump she risks ending up facing a concerted attempt to push her, which would be very undignified.
When most of the Parliamentary Labour Party tried to rid themselves of Corbyn then he could point at the mass membership and say that they loved him. May would end up unwanted by both her MPs and her members. Would she, under those circumstances, choose to trudge on miserably out of blind stubbornness? Maybe. But why?
It is my understanding that May repeated Cameron's (deliberate?) mistake and failed to plan properly for No Deal. That is inexcusable. I've no sympathy at all.
Her staying on is not going to improve matters, it is not going to help reach a resolution. A new leader has no guarantee of doing either, but she certainly cannot.
I have a scientific background. Saying anything is either certain or impossible is a big deal. I try to remember only to do it with great care.
No, parliament doesn't get its new election until after they sort this shit out.
I certainly do not believe that what is good for party A is in itself a good thing for the country, and her remaining as PM is, despite my earlier comment, unlikely to help matters at all, but an action to avoid an election at this stage is good for the country even if it is coincidentally good for the party (and frankly I'm not sure why that it would be - yes they would get hammered in an election right now, but resolving brexit is the best thing for the party and the country).
I don’t think May can stay if her deal is rejected. Assuming the leadership vote progresses to the membership stage, the winning candidate will be the one that refuses a referendum and confirms that No Deal is an option. Assuming that leads to 20 Tory MPs abandoning the whip, they will then have a choice between putting Corbyn into Number 10 in the vain hope of obtaining a referendum, or triggering an election that will see them lose their seats.
Thus we totter towards Hard Brexit.
As for economic ruin, he's quite capable of providing that on his own - or had you not noticed he's driven the entire university sector to the brink of bankruptcy by his crass market manipulation?
It is very telling I think that those who work most closely with him and see the results of his hubris at first hand hate him the most.
Fundamentally I don’t believe those 20 Tory MPs will vote to put Corbyn into Downing Street. They might however trigger an election that could see him take office.
On the other hand, not preparing the country properly for every likely eventuality was a gross dereliction of duty. I don't know what was going on in her head, of course, but it also looks suspiciously like an attempt to try to close off a Hard/Clean Brexit option and force the country to accept a very close relationship with the EU, on terms dictated by the EU. Especially given her position at the start of her leadership, that would be very deceitful.
I don't want to say anything else rude about the woman, because she has had an awful job to do and it is also quite possible that she thinks everything she has done has been genuinely for the best. However, I believe that she has acted very poorly.