Parliament isn't sitting on Friday 18th - so if the vote is next Tuesday Mrs May presumably actually gets six days (within 3 sitting days) until Monday 21st to come back. You can't expect MPs to work Fridays at such momentous times!
I agree. From the press she gets in the Oxford Mail, she seems obsessed with identity politics and little else and comes over as very lightweight. The comments sections predictably call her "Layla Moron" and routinely rip apart her statements.
She doesn't seem anything other than lightweight. No substance to her at all. Never have seen the appeal.
Hard-line Tories don`t.
Except I am not a hard-line Tory. I am an OxWAb voter who was not impressed by her at any point since she was selected. No actual substance to any of her positions. No rhetorical skill. No real world experience to add to the House. A deeply bland candidate.
I have voted for a range of candidates over the past 30 years including Con and LD. But can't support Moran
The Opposition benches look fuller than the government ones.....308 in favour 297 against.....a narrow win....
I'm surprised that the margin was that small.
me too
in the last 2 votes its been fairly tight. It looks like only 610-615 MPs are voting, so where are the other 30 or so - paired off, abstaining ?
In yesterday's vote 25 Labour MPs were absent or abstained against 15 Tory MPs, so it's certainly not all pairing. The Labour whipping operation is crap, but the size of the Tory rebellions is now large enough to compensate for that.
I agree. From the press she gets in the Oxford Mail, she seems obsessed with identity politics and little else and comes over as very lightweight. The comments sections predictably call her "Layla Moron" and routinely rip apart her statements.
That's how the lib dems operate.. Look at Brake Davey Farron it's just about them
Given the boundary changes have still not gone through, Moran is very vulnerable to a slight uptick in the Labour or Tory vote...
And it's worth noting that in 2017, the Labour share was virtually static, which suggests quite a high degree of tactical voting given the swing elsewhere. Only once (in 2010) since the seat was created (in 1983) has the Labour vote share in OxWaB been lower.
She's broadly a social liberal - much more palatable to Labour voters (and the Greens, who stood aside in OxWAb) than a former Coalition minister would be.
I've spent a bit of time looking at the boundary changes for the seat and I think she'd retain it assuming there are no dramatic changes from current polling. Yes, she's toast if Jericho, Summertown and Osney suddenly decide to vote for a Tory party that's been merrily advancing the cause of Brexit for the past years, but somehow I can't see that happening. (And some of the new Cherwell wards are a lot more liberal than you might think.)
A summer election might change things. There must be a few hundred students resident in Jericho who are now likely LD than Tory.
WHat happens if the Gov't doesn't return 3 days after it loses the vote - or simply returns and says it'll try again; or says it'll return err "tommorow" ?
My understanding, FWIW, is that the government has 21 days in which to get the MV passed, failing which it has to make a statement about what it intends to do next. S13(4) of the EU Withdrawal Act states: A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.
I am not sure that there is a limit on how many goes it can have in that 21 days. The approval of the package (not just the WA), however, is a condition precedent of further progress in the ratification of the agreement.
There is no sanction under the legislation, other than of moral force, that comes from the government losing a vote on the statement it has to make if the vote on the WA is lost (nor, in practice, can there be).
A Government aready found to be in contempt of Parliament will take that in its stride......
I agree. From the press she gets in the Oxford Mail, she seems obsessed with identity politics and little else and comes over as very lightweight. The comments sections predictably call her "Layla Moron" and routinely rip apart her statements.
That's how the lib dems operate.. Look at Brake Davey Farron it's just about them
Given the boundary changes have still not gone through, Moran is very vulnerable to a slight uptick in the Labour or Tory vote...
And it's worth noting that in 2017, the Labour share was virtually static, which suggests quite a high degree of tactical voting given the swing elsewhere. Only once (in 2010) since the seat was created (in 1983) has the Labour vote share in OxWaB been lower.
She's broadly a social liberal - much more palatable to Labour voters (and the Greens, who stood aside in OxWAb) than a former Coalition minister would be.
I've spent a bit of time looking at the boundary changes for the seat and I think she'd retain it assuming there are no dramatic changes from current polling. Yes, she's toast if Jericho, Summertown and Osney suddenly decide to vote for a Tory party that's been merrily advancing the cause of Brexit for the past years, but somehow I can't see that happening. (And some of the new Cherwell wards are a lot more liberal than you might think.)
Jericho is one of the Reddest parts of the city outside of East Oxford.
But if the changes happen we do move out of OxWAb into the city seat.
The Opposition benches look fuller than the government ones.....308 in favour 297 against.....a narrow win....
I'm surprised that the margin was that small.
I too thought it would be 20+, and others thought it would be even higher. I wonder if Bercows antics brought some on the government side into line....
While 11 is clearly a "loss" its hardly a "humiliation"....
Dear oh dear, it really has come to this. Comfort blankets at the ready.
And it's his wife's. That just about puts you on the same level as Holloway, Big G, and that's not a great place to be.
Not really.
Bercow has lost any pretence at being impartial and now is firmly seen as as wanting to stop brexit
You're on the wrong side of this one Big G. Allow your natural sense of justice and cool eye for common sense to prevail.
Parliament will be voting, not Bercow. You know, the whole take back control thing. What are you scared of?
Bercow is not a suitable speaker. However, TM deal or remain seem likely so I am content but am concerned about the divisive nature a referendum would be
The remain mps are in control and well organised. ERG are going to lose brexit due to their chaotic organisation
Its not their organisation or chaos that is their issue. They may have been backed by 52% of voters but the 48% have the majority of MPs. No organisation skills or even the Wisdom of Solomon could overcome that.
I agree. From the press she gets in the Oxford Mail, she seems obsessed with identity politics and little else and comes over as very lightweight. The comments sections predictably call her "Layla Moron" and routinely rip apart her statements.
That's how the lib dems operate.. Look at Brake Davey Farron it's just about them
Given the boundary changes have still not gone through, Moran is very vulnerable to a slight uptick in the Labour or Tory vote...
And it's worth noting that in 2017, the Labour share was virtually static, which suggests quite a high degree of tactical voting given the swing elsewhere. Only once (in 2010) since the seat was created (in 1983) has the Labour vote share in OxWaB been lower.
She's broadly a social liberal - much more palatable to Labour voters (and the Greens, who stood aside in OxWAb) than a former Coalition minister would be.
I've spent a bit of time looking at the boundary changes for the seat and I think she'd retain it assuming there are no dramatic changes from current polling. Yes, she's toast if Jericho, Summertown and Osney suddenly decide to vote for a Tory party that's been merrily advancing the cause of Brexit for the past years, but somehow I can't see that happening. (And some of the new Cherwell wards are a lot more liberal than you might think.)
A summer election might change things. There must be a few hundred students resident in Jericho who are now likely LD than Tory.
The Opposition benches look fuller than the government ones.....308 in favour 297 against.....a narrow win....
I'm surprised that the margin was that small.
I too thought it would be 20+, and others thought it would be even higher. I wonder if Bercows antics brought some on the government side into line....
While 11 is clearly a "loss" its hardly a "humiliation"....
Dear oh dear, it really has come to this. Comfort blankets at the ready.
It is of course is another procedural loss about process - it doesn't change the substantive issue i.e. what is May going to do if/when the MV is lost next Tuesday.
Quite soon the Tories may well split big time on meaningful votes.
Grieve amendment passes, government humiliated again, flawless Bercow victory.
Ayes: 308 Noes: 297
Bercow wins the battle but sounds like he's losing the war.
Bercow's demise had been predicted before, and it hasn't happened. I'd bet for him going at a time of his own choice - and that he'll settle some scores in the meantime.
Indeed. The PB Tories have been fapping about Bercow's departure for what seems like decades.
I agree. From the press she gets in the Oxford Mail, she seems obsessed with identity politics and little else and comes over as very lightweight. The comments sections predictably call her "Layla Moron" and routinely rip apart her statements.
That's how the lib dems operate.. Look at Brake Davey Farron it's just about them
Given the boundary changes have still not gone through, Moran is very vulnerable to a slight uptick in the Labour or Tory vote...
And it's worth noting that in 2017, the Labour share was virtually static, which suggests quite a high degree of tactical voting given the swing elsewhere. Only once (in 2010) since the seat was created (in 1983) has the Labour vote share in OxWaB been lower.
She's broadly a social liberal - much more palatable to Labour voters (and the Greens, who stood aside in OxWAb) than a former Coalition minister would be.
I've spent a bit of time looking at the boundary changes for the seat and I think she'd retain it assuming there are no dramatic changes from current polling. Yes, she's toast if Jericho, Summertown and Osney suddenly decide to vote for a Tory party that's been merrily advancing the cause of Brexit for the past years, but somehow I can't see that happening. (And some of the new Cherwell wards are a lot more liberal than you might think.)
Jericho is one of the Reddest parts of the city outside of East Oxford.
But if the changes happen we do move out of OxWAb into the city seat.
Really? When I was up it was where most of the hunting set lived.
And Germany, who won't allow a Hard Border under any circumstances. (So how you gonna deal with that No Deal Hard Border, Mutti? Rather suggest she is urging a rethink to prevent that very No Deal. Come on, drop the backstop you say won't be needed - and suddenly 100+ Tory MPs fall into line.....)
The Opposition benches look fuller than the government ones.....308 in favour 297 against.....a narrow win....
I'm surprised that the margin was that small.
me too
in the last 2 votes its been fairly tight. It looks like only 610-615 MPs are voting, so where are the other 30 or so - paired off, abstaining ?
In yesterday's vote 25 Labour MPs were absent or abstained against 15 Tory MPs, so it's certainly not all pairing. The Labour whipping operation is crap, but the size of the Tory rebellions is now large enough to compensate for that.
I agree. From the press she gets in the Oxford Mail, she seems obsessed with identity politics and little else and comes over as very lightweight. The comments sections predictably call her "Layla Moron" and routinely rip apart her statements.
That's how the lib dems operate.. Look at Brake Davey Farron it's just about them
Given the boundary changes have still not gone through, Moran is very vulnerable to a slight uptick in the Labour or Tory vote...
And it's worth noting that in 2017, the Labour share was virtually static, which suggests quite a high degree of tactical voting given the swing elsewhere. Only once (in 2010) since the seat was created (in 1983) has the Labour vote share in OxWaB been lower.
She's broadly a social liberal - much more palatable to Labour voters (and the Greens, who stood aside in OxWAb) than a former Coalition minister would be.
I've spent a bit of time looking at the boundary changes for the seat and I think she'd retain it assuming there are no dramatic changes from current polling. Yes, she's toast if Jericho, Summertown and Osney suddenly decide to vote for a Tory party that's been merrily advancing the cause of Brexit for the past years, but somehow I can't see that happening. (And some of the new Cherwell wards are a lot more liberal than you might think.)
Jericho is one of the Reddest parts of the city outside of East Oxford.
But if the changes happen we do move out of OxWAb into the city seat.
Really? When I was up it was where most of the hunting set lived.
I agree. From the press she gets in the Oxford Mail, she seems obsessed with identity politics and little else and comes over as very lightweight. The comments sections predictably call her "Layla Moron" and routinely rip apart her statements.
That's how the lib dems operate.. Look at Brake Davey Farron it's just about them
Given the boundary changes have still not gone through, Moran is very vulnerable to a slight uptick in the Labour or Tory vote...
And it's worth noting that in 2017, the Labour share was virtually static, which suggests quite a high degree of tactical voting given the swing elsewhere. Only once (in 2010) since the seat was created (in 1983) has the Labour vote share in OxWaB been lower.
She's broadly a social liberal - much more palatable to Labour voters (and the Greens, who stood aside in OxWAb) than a former Coalition minister would be.
I've spent a bit of time looking at the boundary changes for the seat and I think she'd retain it assuming there are no dramatic changes from current polling. Yes, she's toast if Jericho, Summertown and Osney suddenly decide to vote for a Tory party that's been merrily advancing the cause of Brexit for the past years, but somehow I can't see that happening. (And some of the new Cherwell wards are a lot more liberal than you might think.)
Jericho is one of the Reddest parts of the city outside of East Oxford.
But if the changes happen we do move out of OxWAb into the city seat.
Really? When I was up it was where most of the hunting set lived.
The memory is probably another of your many delusions.
And it's his wife's. That just about puts you on the same level as Holloway, Big G, and that's not a great place to be.
Not really.
Bercow has lost any pretence at being impartial and now is firmly seen as as wanting to stop brexit
You're on the wrong side of this one Big G. Allow your natural sense of justice and cool eye for common sense to prevail.
Parliament will be voting, not Bercow. You know, the whole take back control thing. What are you scared of?
Bercow is not a suitable speaker. However, TM deal or remain seem likely so I am content but am concerned about the divisive nature a referendum would be
The remain mps are in control and well organised. ERG are going to lose brexit due to their chaotic organisation
Its not their organisation or chaos that is their issue. They may have been backed by 52% of voters but the 48% have the majority of MPs. No organisation skills or even the Wisdom of Solomon could overcome that.
Not at all. May decided to treat the referendum result like it was a General Election - forget the other lot they can have their say in five years time. Except it was a once in a generation vote.
She should have brought together all sides of the debate to forge, together with the EU, a sensible, consensus-building Brexit.
But she didn't. She treated it like a GE and, like GEs, that set up the expectation of "the other side" having another crack at it via subsequent votes, in this case a second referendum.
You know things are getting seriously bad for the government when the PB Tories are playing down the scale of the latest defeat.
Jesus wept.
The size of the defeat doesn't matter. The effect does. So tell us - what is the effect, in the great scheme of things? What great victory have Remainers won?
And Germany, who won't allow a Hard Border under any circumstances. (So how you gonna deal with that No Deal Hard Border, Mutti? Rather suggest she is urging a rethink to prevent that very No Deal. Come on, drop the backstop you say won't be needed - and suddenly 100+ Tory MPs fall into line.....)
I doubt blinking is the issue, the warm uncomfortable feel inside Leos trouser leg might be more of an issue
I can't see Labour allowing a No Deal Brexit to occur while an election was taking place...
Is this the same Labour Party that is actively pursuing a general election in the event that the Withdrawal Agreement is voted down?
By my reckoning, the absolute earliest that a GE could be held following a failed vote next Tuesday is
15 Jan - WA vote 16 Jan - VoNC 31 Jan - 2-week FTPA period expires 7 Mar - General election
However, I'm not sure whether the 31 January would count as the first day of the 25 working days of the campaign. If not, then we'd be looking at March 14 as the earliest polling day and it's not impossible to see how you could get to a point where the earliest date is 28 March or later. In that case, does Labour keep pushing for a GE, even though the Commons hasn't 9and hence can't) ratified any deal?
I agree. From the press she gets in the Oxford Mail, she seems obsessed with identity politics and little else and comes over as very lightweight. The comments sections predictably call her "Layla Moron" and routinely rip apart her statements.
She doesn't seem anything other than lightweight. No substance to her at all. Never have seen the appeal.
Hard-line Tories don`t.
Except I am not a hard-line Tory. I am an OxWAb voter who was not impressed by her at any point since she was selected. No actual substance to any of her positions. No rhetorical skill. No real world experience to add to the House. A deeply bland candidate. I have voted for a range of candidates over the past 30 years including Con and LD. But can't support Moran
My deepest apologies to you then. I always took you to be an extreme Tory. Unforgivable of me.
The Opposition benches look fuller than the government ones.....308 in favour 297 against.....a narrow win....
I'm surprised that the margin was that small.
me too
in the last 2 votes its been fairly tight. It looks like only 610-615 MPs are voting, so where are the other 30 or so - paired off, abstaining ?
In yesterday's vote 25 Labour MPs were absent or abstained against 15 Tory MPs, so it's certainly not all pairing. The Labour whipping operation is crap, but the size of the Tory rebellions is now large enough to compensate for that.
let me guess Jezza was at his alotment ?
The Met Office is warning of possible cold weather (towards the end of the month) after the Sudden Stratospheric Warming that's just happened, so there might be a bit of work to be done before the weather brings a pause to his endeavours.
And it's his wife's. That just about puts you on the same level as Holloway, Big G, and that's not a great place to be.
Not really.
Bercow has lost any pretence at being impartial and now is firmly seen as as wanting to stop brexit
You're on the wrong side of this one Big G. Allow your natural sense of justice and cool eye for common sense to prevail.
Parliament will be voting, not Bercow. You know, the whole take back control thing. What are you scared of?
Bercow is not a suitable speaker. However, TM deal or remain seem likely so I am content but am concerned about the divisive nature a referendum would be
The remain mps are in control and well organised. ERG are going to lose brexit due to their chaotic organisation
Its not their organisation or chaos that is their issue. They may have been backed by 52% of voters but the 48% have the majority of MPs. No organisation skills or even the Wisdom of Solomon could overcome that.
Not at all. May decided to treat the referendum result like it was a General Election - forget the other lot they can have their say in five years time. Except it was a once in a generation vote.
She should have brought together all sides of the debate to forge, together with the EU, a sensible, consensus-building Brexit.
But she didn't. She treated it like a GE and, like GEs, that set up the expectation of "the other side" having another crack at it via subsequent votes, in this case a second referendum.
I suspect when the dust has settled there will be serious questions about May’s approach. At no point has she offered anything to others. She wanted to whip it through inside the Tory Party rather than reaching out. A terrible error.
And Germany, who won't allow a Hard Border under any circumstances. (So how you gonna deal with that No Deal Hard Border, Mutti? Rather suggest she is urging a rethink to prevent that very No Deal. Come on, drop the backstop you say won't be needed - and suddenly 100+ Tory MPs fall into line.....)
I agree. From the press she gets in the Oxford Mail, she seems obsessed with identity politics and little else and comes over as very lightweight. The comments sections predictably call her "Layla Moron" and routinely rip apart her statements.
She doesn't seem anything other than lightweight. No substance to her at all. Never have seen the appeal.
Hard-line Tories don`t.
Except I am not a hard-line Tory. I am an OxWAb voter who was not impressed by her at any point since she was selected. No actual substance to any of her positions. No rhetorical skill. No real world experience to add to the House. A deeply bland candidate. I have voted for a range of candidates over the past 30 years including Con and LD. But can't support Moran
My deepest apologies to you then. I always took you to be an extreme Tory. Unforgivable of me.
You know things are getting seriously bad for the government when the PB Tories are playing down the scale of the latest defeat.
Jesus wept.
The size of the defeat doesn't matter. The effect does. So tell us - what is the effect, in the great scheme of things? What great victory have Remainers won?
They have made it easier to vote against May's deal ? And hence increased the chances of both a second referendum and a WTO Brexit.
You know things are getting seriously bad for the government when the PB Tories are playing down the scale of the latest defeat.
Jesus wept.
The size of the defeat doesn't matter. The effect does. So tell us - what is the effect, in the great scheme of things? What great victory have Remainers won?
I didn't claim that they had. I merely pointed out that the government is crippled. Losing votes a plenty.
Grieve amendment passes, government humiliated again, flawless Bercow victory.
Ayes: 308 Noes: 297
Bercow wins the battle but sounds like he's losing the war.
Bercow's demise had been predicted before, and it hasn't happened. I'd bet for him going at a time of his own choice - and that he'll settle some scores in the meantime.
Indeed. The PB Tories have been fapping about Bercow's departure for what seems like decades.
Even if the ERG try and salvage something out of Brexit by voting for the deal there are no numbers for it now - poor Jacob like and early edition WW1 general.
Not at all. May decided to treat the referendum result like it was a General Election - forget the other lot they can have their say in five years time. Except it was a once in a generation vote.
She should have brought together all sides of the debate to forge, together with the EU, a sensible, consensus-building Brexit.
But she didn't. She treated it like a GE and, like GEs, that set up the expectation of "the other side" having another crack at it via subsequent votes, in this case a second referendum.
That's an unfair characterisation of what she did. It is true that she failed abysmally in the people-management aspect of building a consensus, but in terms of substantive positioning she has very much tried to come up with a compromise deal which should be acceptable to all sides. She's tried very hard to implement the letter and the spirit of the referendum vote, whilst keeping close ties with Europe and minimising the economic hit. Unfortunately she has catastrophically failed to prevent others from framing the deal as they want to, for their own purposes.
Fairly predictably, I imagine some of the Conservative activists on here have been pretty negative about Layla. Well, that's to be expected. Any possible leader of any other party is immediately denigrated and mocked.
As for future Conservative leaders, well, the Tories do a very good line in parody and self-mockery which seems to consist of calling each other "sh1ts" or similar. Ho hum.
While I don't agree with her on policy (at least in this instance), I think if Layla Moran wants to be leader, fine, let her put herself forward and along with other Party members, I'll go to the hustings and see what she has to say.
She has impressed me thus far not least for wrenching Oxford West from the Conservatives last time. I do want to hear she would take the challenge to Labour and particularly how she could draw moderate Labour supporters toward the LDs.
And it's his wife's. That just about puts you on the same level as Holloway, Big G, and that's not a great place to be.
Not really.
Bercow has lost any pretence at being impartial and now is firmly seen as as wanting to stop brexit
You're on the wrong side of this one Big G. Allow your natural sense of justice and cool eye for common sense to prevail.
Parliament will be voting, not Bercow. You know, the whole take back control thing. What are you scared of?
Bercow is not a suitable speaker. However, TM deal or remain seem likely so I am content but am concerned about the divisive nature a referendum would be
The remain mps are in control and well organised. ERG are going to lose brexit due to their chaotic organisation
Its not their organisation or chaos that is their issue. They may have been backed by 52% of voters but the 48% have the majority of MPs. No organisation skills or even the Wisdom of Solomon could overcome that.
Not at all. May decided to treat the referendum result like it was a General Election - forget the other lot they can have their say in five years time. Except it was a once in a generation vote.
She should have brought together all sides of the debate to forge, together with the EU, a sensible, consensus-building Brexit.
But she didn't. She treated it like a GE and, like GEs, that set up the expectation of "the other side" having another crack at it via subsequent votes, in this case a second referendum.
well maybe but unlike flouncy Dave shes still there taking her punishment
I agree. From the press she gets in the Oxford Mail, she seems obsessed with identity politics and little else and comes over as very lightweight. The comments sections predictably call her "Layla Moron" and routinely rip apart her statements.
She doesn't seem anything other than lightweight. No substance to her at all. Never have seen the appeal.
Hard-line Tories don`t.
Except I am not a hard-line Tory. I am an OxWAb voter who was not impressed by her at any point since she was selected. No actual substance to any of her positions. No rhetorical skill. No real world experience to add to the House. A deeply bland candidate. I have voted for a range of candidates over the past 30 years including Con and LD. But can't support Moran
My deepest apologies to you then. I always took you to be an extreme Tory. Unforgivable of me.
I am naturally right of centre. But not hard-line by any means. I voted Remain even though I have severe misgivings about the impact of European courts on our political and judicial lives.
I have friends across the political spectrum and I abhor the posturing and preening of many modern politicians. I hold much of the current HoC in contempt. The quality of our political class is woefully low. And that applies to all parties.
We are in a difficult situation. Rational debate now seems impossible. I just want it over with. And I am not alone in that.
So no by-election in South Thanet then. When do we hear about sentencing for the soon-to-be-ex-MP for Peterborough?
All the signs are she won't be an ex-MP, she will cling on regardless.
Petition to Recall will do for her......
The petition threshold is very high. Wasn't reached with the NI MP who was suspended from the Commons for taking and not declaring gifts from other countries.
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons within three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons with three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
Not sure about Layla Moran, but I would happily see Rachel Riley as leader of the Labour Party.
Surely you mean the Labor Party in Israel
She isnt a member of the British Labour Party now.
BTW the court case brought against Corbyn being an Anti Semite has been withdrawn hasn't it?
What a fucking arsehole you are BJO.
Edit: I would have said c&nt but that type of language is not allowed on here.
What's rattled your cage? Some celebrity idiot off Countdown isn't worth getting stressed over.
What has Rachel Riley got to do with Israel? She is British and I assume he is raising it to somehow flag her cultural heritage. If someone said go back home to any minority I would be equally enraged
So no by-election in South Thanet then. When do we hear about sentencing for the soon-to-be-ex-MP for Peterborough?
All the signs are she won't be an ex-MP, she will cling on regardless.
Petition to Recall will do for her......
The petition threshold is very high. Wasn't reached with the NI MP who was suspended from the Commons for taking and not declaring gifts from other countries.
I think being a convicted criminal is a v different matter.
Not at all. May decided to treat the referendum result like it was a General Election - forget the other lot they can have their say in five years time. Except it was a once in a generation vote.
She should have brought together all sides of the debate to forge, together with the EU, a sensible, consensus-building Brexit.
But she didn't. She treated it like a GE and, like GEs, that set up the expectation of "the other side" having another crack at it via subsequent votes, in this case a second referendum.
That's an unfair characterisation of what she did. It is true that she failed abysmally in the people-management aspect of building a consensus, but in terms of substantive positioning she has very much tried to come up with a compromise deal which should be acceptable to all sides. She's tried very hard to implement the letter and the spirit of the referendum vote, whilst keeping close ties with Europe and minimising the economic hit. Unfortunately she has catastrophically failed to prevent others from framing the deal as they want to, for their own purposes.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons with three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
What happens if Plan B is voted down?
I believe that MPs will be able to put forward alternatives (because of the previous Grieve amendment). Grieve seems single-handedly to be defining the process (well, someone has to, I suppose...).
Bercow’s gamble was that he is protected by a double majority: that a majority of MPs will vote for Grieve’s amendment, meaning that he can say he is acting as he should as Speaker, and facilitating the will of the house, and that furthermore, he is protected by a majority of MPs who believe that he is on their side against the executive. Had that gamble been lost, Bercow would certainly have faced an organised and potentially successful attempt to oust him as Speaker. But it wasn’t, so he survives, protected by the one rule in Westminster that really matters.
But I’m not sure that the gamble will work out that well for Grieve himself and the other supporters of another In-Out referendum. Why? Well, because while they don’t agree with Theresa May on much, they do share an interest: which is to run out the clock to the point where they can cobble together a majority in parliament to secure another referendum, something they are presently not in a position to do. By shortening the amount of time that May has to delay, Grieve has also made it less likely that a parliamentary majority for a second referendum will ever emerge.
I agree. From the press she gets in the Oxford Mail, she seems obsessed with identity politics and little else and comes over as very lightweight. The comments sections predictably call her "Layla Moron" and routinely rip apart her statements.
She doesn't seem anything other than lightweight. No substance to her at all. Never have seen the appeal.
Hard-line Tories don`t.
Except I am not a hard-line Tory. I am an OxWAb voter who was not impressed by her at any point since she was selected. No actual substance to any of her positions. No rhetorical skill. No real world experience to add to the House. A deeply bland candidate. I have voted for a range of candidates over the past 30 years including Con and LD. But can't support Moran
My deepest apologies to you then. I always took you to be an extreme Tory. Unforgivable of me.
So no by-election in South Thanet then. When do we hear about sentencing for the soon-to-be-ex-MP for Peterborough?
All the signs are she won't be an ex-MP, she will cling on regardless.
Petition to Recall will do for her......
The petition threshold is very high. Wasn't reached with the NI MP who was suspended from the Commons for taking and not declaring gifts from other countries.
I think being a convicted criminal is a v different matter.
Labour has, more or less anyway, said they'll support such a petition. The DUP made no such statement in the other case.
Cable will stand down in the second quarter of this year. The media will talk up the possibility of Layla standing; she won't. The contest will be between Jo Swinson and Ed Davey, with Jo winning.
I agree. From the press she gets in the Oxford Mail, she seems obsessed with identity politics and little else and comes over as very lightweight. The comments sections predictably call her "Layla Moron" and routinely rip apart her statements.
That's how the lib dems operate.. Look at Brake Davey Farron it's just about them
Given the boundary changes have still not gone through, Moran is very vulnerable to a slight uptick in the Labour or Tory vote...
And it's worth noting that in 2017, the Labour share was virtually static, which suggests quite a high degree of tactical voting given the swing elsewhere. Only once (in 2010) since the seat was created (in 1983) has the Labour vote share in OxWaB been lower.
She's broadly a social liberal - much more palatable to Labour voters (and the Greens, who stood aside in OxWAb) than a former Coalition minister would be.
I've spent a bit of time looking at the boundary changes for the seat and I think she'd retain it assuming there are no dramatic changes from current polling. Yes, she's toast if Jericho, Summertown and Osney suddenly decide to vote for a Tory party that's been merrily advancing the cause of Brexit for the past years, but somehow I can't see that happening. (And some of the new Cherwell wards are a lot more liberal than you might think.)
Jericho is one of the Reddest parts of the city outside of East Oxford.
But if the changes happen we do move out of OxWAb into the city seat.
Really? When I was up it was where most of the hunting set lived.
Labour holds the council seat with a 2k majority
Indeed. I know the two Labour councillors passingly: they're both moderates policy-wise (for all Susanna's fire and brimstone!) and seem to get on well with the neighbouring Lib Dem councillors. I doubt Oxford Labour will be making a big effort to take votes away from Layla and let the newly anointed Conservative candidate through in her place - a rather curious blockchain enthusiast from Berkshire, if I remember rightly.
Mr. Eagles, could be wrong, but I believe the sequoia tree requires fire for its reproductive process. When a prolonged fire-free period happened, experts were initially baffled by this seeming to harm the sequoia's reproduction.
Not at all. May decided to treat the referendum result like it was a General Election - forget the other lot they can have their say in five years time. Except it was a once in a generation vote.
She should have brought together all sides of the debate to forge, together with the EU, a sensible, consensus-building Brexit.
But she didn't. She treated it like a GE and, like GEs, that set up the expectation of "the other side" having another crack at it via subsequent votes, in this case a second referendum.
That's an unfair characterisation of what she did. It is true that she failed abysmally in the people-management aspect of building a consensus, but in terms of substantive positioning she has very much tried to come up with a compromise deal which should be acceptable to all sides. She's tried very hard to implement the letter and the spirit of the referendum vote, whilst keeping close ties with Europe and minimising the economic hit. Unfortunately she has catastrophically failed to prevent others from framing the deal as they want to, for their own purposes.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
Odd logic, speaking as a Leave voter who doesn't care about freedom of movement. You think 0.0% of Remain voters cared about freedom of movement?
I believe even a significant proportion of remain voters still prefer control over migration, just not enough to vote Leave.
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons within three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
it is of course pure nonsense what happens if she just sits on her hands and does nothing ? Plan B could be the same as Plan A with some frilly bits added. Unless parliament decides to dissolve she can sit there for the next 12 months. There arent the numbers to unseat the government unless large numbers of tories wish to hand the keys to Jezza. And the Tories cant unseat her until December. Really she can now piss them all about as they rely on her being responsible in a way MPs have not.
Not at all. May decided to treat the referendum result like it was a General Election - forget the other lot they can have their say in five years time. Except it was a once in a generation vote.
She should have brought together all sides of the debate to forge, together with the EU, a sensible, consensus-building Brexit.
But she didn't. She treated it like a GE and, like GEs, that set up the expectation of "the other side" having another crack at it via subsequent votes, in this case a second referendum.
That's an unfair characterisation of what she did. It is true that she failed abysmally in the people-management aspect of building a consensus, but in terms of substantive positioning she has very much tried to come up with a compromise deal which should be acceptable to all sides. She's tried very hard to implement the letter and the spirit of the referendum vote, whilst keeping close ties with Europe and minimising the economic hit. Unfortunately she has catastrophically failed to prevent others from framing the deal as they want to, for their own purposes.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
Odd logic, speaking as a Leave voter who doesn't care about freedom of movement. You think 0.0% of Remain voters cared about freedom of movement?
I believe even a significant proportion of remain voters still prefer control over migration, just not enough to vote Leave.
Huh? I'm saying that as an issue for 25% of the electorate it would have been a candidate for compromise.
Fairly predictably, I imagine some of the Conservative activists on here have been pretty negative about Layla. Well, that's to be expected. Any possible leader of any other party is immediately denigrated and mocked.
As for future Conservative leaders, well, the Tories do a very good line in parody and self-mockery which seems to consist of calling each other "sh1ts" or similar. Ho hum.
While I don't agree with her on policy (at least in this instance), I think if Layla Moran wants to be leader, fine, let her put herself forward and along with other Party members, I'll go to the hustings and see what she has to say.
She has impressed me thus far not least for wrenching Oxford West from the Conservatives last time. I do want to hear she would take the challenge to Labour and particularly how she could draw moderate Labour supporters toward the LDs.
The way she persuaded Lab tactical voters to the LDs, and for Greens to not field a candidate shows a degree of political persuasiveness much needed in the party.
So no by-election in South Thanet then. When do we hear about sentencing for the soon-to-be-ex-MP for Peterborough?
All the signs are she won't be an ex-MP, she will cling on regardless.
Petition to Recall will do for her......
The petition threshold is very high. Wasn't reached with the NI MP who was suspended from the Commons for taking and not declaring gifts from other countries.
I think being a convicted criminal is a v different matter.
Still leaves the petition threshold very high. 10% of registered voters signing the petition is a significant proportion of people who'd actually vote in actual [non-General] elections. A lot of people may dislike having a convicted criminal there but not bother to sign the petition.
Not at all. May decided to treat the referendum result like it was a General Election - forget the other lot they can have their say in five years time. Except it was a once in a generation vote.
She should have brought together all sides of the debate to forge, together with the EU, a sensible, consensus-building Brexit.
But she didn't. She treated it like a GE and, like GEs, that set up the expectation of "the other side" having another crack at it via subsequent votes, in this case a second referendum.
That's an unfair characterisation of what she did. It is true that she failed abysmally in the people-management aspect of building a consensus, but in terms of substantive positioning she has very much tried to come up with a compromise deal which should be acceptable to all sides. She's tried very hard to implement the letter and the spirit of the referendum vote, whilst keeping close ties with Europe and minimising the economic hit. Unfortunately she has catastrophically failed to prevent others from framing the deal as they want to, for their own purposes.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
"Some huge percentage" = 50% ?!?!?
Your conflation of those who considered it the "most important issue" with those who "cared about it" is just preposterous.
So no by-election in South Thanet then. When do we hear about sentencing for the soon-to-be-ex-MP for Peterborough?
All the signs are she won't be an ex-MP, she will cling on regardless.
Petition to Recall will do for her......
The petition threshold is very high. Wasn't reached with the NI MP who was suspended from the Commons for taking and not declaring gifts from other countries.
I think being a convicted criminal is a v different matter.
Labour has, more or less anyway, said they'll support such a petition. The DUP made no such statement in the other case.
And in any case, she'll still be out if she's sentenced to 12 months or more, which has to be quite likely. There is the possibility of appeal, though lawyers here will be able to advise on (1) whether she'd be granted an appeal - I presume you have to make a case as to why you'd be entitled to one - and (2) how long it'd be likely to take if the case does go on?
Not at all. May decided to treat the referendum result like it was a General Election - forget the other lot they can have their say in five years time. Except it was a once in a generation vote.
She should have brought together all sides of the debate to forge, together with the EU, a sensible, consensus-building Brexit.
But she didn't. She treated it like a GE and, like GEs, that set up the expectation of "the other side" having another crack at it via subsequent votes, in this case a second referendum.
That's an unfair characterisation of what she did. It is true that she failed abysmally in the people-management aspect of building a consensus, but in terms of substantive positioning she has very much tried to come up with a compromise deal which should be acceptable to all sides. She's tried very hard to implement the letter and the spirit of the referendum vote, whilst keeping close ties with Europe and minimising the economic hit. Unfortunately she has catastrophically failed to prevent others from framing the deal as they want to, for their own purposes.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
Odd logic, speaking as a Leave voter who doesn't care about freedom of movement. You think 0.0% of Remain voters cared about freedom of movement?
I believe even a significant proportion of remain voters still prefer control over migration, just not enough to vote Leave.
Huh? I'm saying that as an issue for 25% of the electorate it would have been a candidate for compromise.
Its not an issue for 25% of the electorate.
You're saying that half of 52% view it as an issue which makes 26%, but you're then acting as if zero remain voters care about it. If even a third of remain voters want control of migration out of Brexit then that is a further 16% not 0%.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
You are assuming that anyone who didn't vote Leave and who didn't put FoM down as the most important issue wasn't fussed about FoM. That's plainly wrong. Many people who voted Leave who wouldn't have put it first would nonetheless have put it as important, and many people who voted Remain did so despite not wanting FoM to continue unchanged.
A form of Brexit which left FoM untouched would be a complete travesty.
Not at all. May decided to treat the referendum result like it was a General Election - forget the other lot they can have their say in five years time. Except it was a once in a generation vote.
She should have brought together all sides of the debate to forge, together with the EU, a sensible, consensus-building Brexit.
But she didn't. She treated it like a GE and, like GEs, that set up the expectation of "the other side" having another crack at it via subsequent votes, in this case a second referendum.
That's an unfair characterisation of what she did. It is true that she failed abysmally in the people-management aspect of building a consensus, but in terms of substantive positioning she has very much tried to come up with a compromise deal which should be acceptable to all sides. She's tried very hard to implement the letter and the spirit of the referendum vote, whilst keeping close ties with Europe and minimising the economic hit. Unfortunately she has catastrophically failed to prevent others from framing the deal as they want to, for their own purposes.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
You're contradiction yourself left, right and centre. For the record I don't care about FOM but poll after poll suggested it's a big issue for remain voters and a huge issue for leave voters.
Not at all. May decided to treat the referendum result like it was a General Election - forget the other lot they can have their say in five years time. Except it was a once in a generation vote.
She should have brought together all sides of the debate to forge, together with the EU, a sensible, consensus-building Brexit.
But she didn't. She treated it like a GE and, like GEs, that set up the expectation of "the other side" having another crack at it via subsequent votes, in this case a second referendum.
That's an unfair characterisation of what she did. It is true that she failed abysmally in the people-management aspect of building a consensus, but in terms of substantive positioning she has very much tried to come up with a compromise deal which should be acceptable to all sides. She's tried very hard to implement the letter and the spirit of the referendum vote, whilst keeping close ties with Europe and minimising the economic hit. Unfortunately she has catastrophically failed to prevent others from framing the deal as they want to, for their own purposes.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
"Some huge percentage" = 50% ?!?!?
Your conflation of those who considered it the "most important issue" with those who "cared about it" is just preposterous.
So what are you saying? It's too high or too low? Help me here what point are you making?
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons with three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
What happens if Plan B is voted down?
There won't be a Plan B: it'll be Plan A again. Nothing has changed.
And in reality, nothing has changed. The government cannot magic up a Norway Plus agreement from thin air. The only solutions are Deal, No Deal and Remain: the same as they always were.
She's tried very hard to implement the letter and the spirit of the referendum vote, whilst keeping close ties with Europe and minimising the economic hit. Unfortunately she has catastrophically failed to prevent others from framing the deal as they want to, for their own purposes.
And is still trying.
Her biggest mistake has nothing to do with her approach to Brexit. It was calling and then botching the 2017 general election.
Regarding the 'framing' of the deal, yes, spot on. The deal should not be referred to as 'the deal'. It should be called 'a negotiated exit from the European Union'.
Random 'honourable' member stands up in the House or hits the TV studios:
"I respect the result of the 2016 referendum, of course I do, but I'm sorry I just cannot support a negotiated exit from the European Union."
Not at all. May decided to treat the referendum result like it was a General Election - forget the other lot they can have their say in five years time. Except it was a once in a generation vote.
She should have brought together all sides of the debate to forge, together with the EU, a sensible, consensus-building Brexit.
But she didn't. She treated it like a GE and, like GEs, that set up the expectation of "the other side" having another crack at it via subsequent votes, in this case a second referendum.
That's an unfair characterisation of what she did. It is true that she failed abysmally in the people-management aspect of building a consensus, but in terms of substantive positioning she has very much tried to come up with a compromise deal which should be acceptable to all sides. She's tried very hard to implement the letter and the spirit of the referendum vote, whilst keeping close ties with Europe and minimising the economic hit. Unfortunately she has catastrophically failed to prevent others from framing the deal as they want to, for their own purposes.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
"Some huge percentage" = 50% ?!?!?
Your conflation of those who considered it the "most important issue" with those who "cared about it" is just preposterous.
Its like implying if you think education is a more important issue than the NHS you don't care about the NHS!
You could equally quote other polls like this one which suggested 86% of Tory and two thirds of Labour voters wanted to reduce EU immigration. - which implies at the least they want some sort of reform/ending of freedom of movement or at least restricting access to welfare.
But like support for a people's vote on the deal vs a second referendum on Brexit voters responses to polls depend on the question asked - even if the options are the same in effect!
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons within three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
Probably got more chance than most of smoking out the labour position. I heard their spokesman getting very angry with Sarah Montague for trying to do just that on the World at One. They are not only letting the Tories of the hook but making themselves seem foolish into the bargain
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
You are assuming that anyone who didn't vote Leave and who didn't put FoM down as the most important issue wasn't fussed about FoM. That's plainly wrong. Many people who voted Leave who wouldn't have put it first would nonetheless have put it as important, and many people who voted Remain did so despite not wanting FoM to continue unchanged.
A form of Brexit which left FoM untouched would be a complete travesty.
I voted remain but am certainly in favour of a lower YoY population...
Fairly predictably, I imagine some of the Conservative activists on here have been pretty negative about Layla. Well, that's to be expected. Any possible leader of any other party is immediately denigrated and mocked.
As for future Conservative leaders, well, the Tories do a very good line in parody and self-mockery which seems to consist of calling each other "sh1ts" or similar. Ho hum.
While I don't agree with her on policy (at least in this instance), I think if Layla Moran wants to be leader, fine, let her put herself forward and along with other Party members, I'll go to the hustings and see what she has to say.
She has impressed me thus far not least for wrenching Oxford West from the Conservatives last time. I do want to hear she would take the challenge to Labour and particularly how she could draw moderate Labour supporters toward the LDs.
The way she persuaded Lab tactical voters to the LDs, and for Greens to not field a candidate shows a degree of political persuasiveness much needed in the party.
I think that might be somewhat overstating her personal role in that movement
A lot of the vote shift seemed to happen in the Ab part of the constituency which had been heading in that direction significantly at council level.
I have no recollection of seeing her being personally active in driving any particular tactical agenda. There were those at work on it but it seemed to be from Labour modereates looking for a new home.
There was zero LD canvassing in my part of Jericho and very little leafleting.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
You are assuming that anyone who didn't vote Leave and who didn't put FoM down as the most important issue wasn't fussed about FoM. That's plainly wrong. Many people who voted Leave who wouldn't have put it first would nonetheless have put it as important, and many people who voted Remain did so despite not wanting FoM to continue unchanged.
A form of Brexit which left FoM untouched would be a complete travesty.
Brexit means Brexit, ie. leaving the EU. There was nothing on the ballot paper about what form Brexit should take.
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons with three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
What happens if Plan B is voted down?
There won't be a Plan B: it'll be Plan A again. Nothing has changed.
And in reality, nothing has changed. The government cannot magic up a Norway Plus agreement from thin air. The only solutions are Deal, No Deal and Remain: the same as they always were.
And the problem remains - Parliament seems clear what it doesn't want but can't agree on what it does want.
Not at all. May decided to treat the referendum result like it was a General Election - forget the other lot they can have their say in five years time. Except it was a once in a generation vote.
She should have brought together all sides of the debate to forge, together with the EU, a sensible, consensus-building Brexit.
But she didn't. She treated it like a GE and, like GEs, that set up the expectation of "the other side" having another crack at it via subsequent votes, in this case a second referendum.
That's an unfair characterisation of what she did. It is true that she failed abysmally in the people-management aspect of building a consensus, but in terms of substantive positioning she has very much tried to come up with a compromise deal which should be acceptable to all sides. She's tried very hard to implement the letter and the spirit of the referendum vote, whilst keeping close ties with Europe and minimising the economic hit. Unfortunately she has catastrophically failed to prevent others from framing the deal as they want to, for their own purposes.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
You're contradiction yourself left, right and centre. For the record I don't care about FOM but poll after poll suggested it's a big issue for remain voters and a huge issue for leave voters.
Fine so up the percentage. Make it 50% of everyone who voted. So what? It was only 50% of everyone who voted. It wasn't 90%.
And I'm sure PB is the only place in the country where most Leavers don't care about FoM.
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons with three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
What happens if Plan B is voted down?
There won't be a Plan B: it'll be Plan A again. Nothing has changed.
And in reality, nothing has changed. The government cannot magic up a Norway Plus agreement from thin air. The only solutions are Deal, No Deal and Remain: the same as they always were.
They could substitute the backstop with re-entry if a permanent deal is not agreed after X years.
That could pass HoC, satisfy the 2016 referendum and give all sides something to aim for. Alas. Will never happen.
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons within three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
You are assuming that anyone who didn't vote Leave and who didn't put FoM down as the most important issue wasn't fussed about FoM. That's plainly wrong. Many people who voted Leave who wouldn't have put it first would nonetheless have put it as important, and many people who voted Remain did so despite not wanting FoM to continue unchanged.
A form of Brexit which left FoM untouched would be a complete travesty.
Well we could have implemented some of the various tools available to us while we were a member.
And I disagree with your "travesty". Politics is about compromise.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
So no by-election in South Thanet then. When do we hear about sentencing for the soon-to-be-ex-MP for Peterborough?
All the signs are she won't be an ex-MP, she will cling on regardless.
Petition to Recall will do for her......
The petition threshold is very high. Wasn't reached with the NI MP who was suspended from the Commons for taking and not declaring gifts from other countries.
I think being a convicted criminal is a v different matter.
Still leaves the petition threshold very high. 10% of registered voters signing the petition is a significant proportion of people who'd actually vote in actual [non-General] elections. A lot of people may dislike having a convicted criminal there but not bother to sign the petition.
The electorate numbered 70,723 as best I can make out at the time of the 2017GE, so the threshold would be around 7,073.
The recall petition in North Antrim only just fell short at 7,099 of the 7,543 signatures required. With her own party against her, as well as the opposition, you would hope that the petition would succeed.
Something else I find puzzling. Why would the president of the USA not get someone to check his spelling? (1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling. (2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
(1)
With a combination of
(3) He doesn't care enough about spelling to get it right.
Not at all. May decided to treat the referendum result like it was a General Election - forget the other lot they can have their say in five years time. Except it was a once in a generation vote.
She should have brought together all sides of the debate to forge, together with the EU, a sensible, consensus-building Brexit.
But she didn't. She treated it like a GE and, like GEs, that set up the expectation of "the other side" having another crack at it via subsequent votes, in this case a second referendum.
That's an unfair characterisation of what she did. It is true that she failed abysmally in the people-management aspect of building a consensus, but in terms of substantive positioning she has very much tried to come up with a compromise deal which should be acceptable to all sides. She's tried very hard to implement the letter and the spirit of the referendum vote, whilst keeping close ties with Europe and minimising the economic hit. Unfortunately she has catastrophically failed to prevent others from framing the deal as they want to, for their own purposes.
What Topping said was a very fair characterisation. May made Brexit a Tory party project from day 1. Thereby she made exactly the same mistake Cameron did by leading the Remain campaign. PMs are wise not to forget that though they have enormous power, it was given to them by only about 40% of the electorate.
It's laughable to say that she's tried to come up with a compromise deal - she's got the best deal she can based on what she wants.
Well let's take the most contentious issue - freedom of movement. Some huge percentage (~50%) of Leave voters cited it as being the most important issue. That makes (0.5 x 17.4)/(16.1 + 17.4) = 26% of voters cared about it. And yet it drove almost her entire approach.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
You are assuming that anyone who didn't vote Leave and who didn't put FoM down as the most important issue wasn't fussed about FoM. That's plainly wrong. Many people who voted Leave who wouldn't have put it first would nonetheless have put it as important, and many people who voted Remain did so despite not wanting FoM to continue unchanged.
A form of Brexit which left FoM untouched would be a complete travesty.
Well we could have implemented some of the various tools available to us while we were a member.
And I disagree with your "travesty". Politics is about compromise.
but the point is we didnt and a sizeable chumk of the electorate didnt think the government ever would.
if UK governments had taken on board voters concerns earlier there would never have been a Brexit.
Its like implying if you think education is a more important issue than the NHS you don't care about the NHS!
You could equally quote other polls like this one which suggested 86% of Tory and two thirds of Labour voters wanted to reduce EU immigration. - which implies at the least they want some sort of reform/ending of freedom of movement or at least restricting access to welfare.
But like support for a people's vote on the deal vs a second referendum on Brexit voters responses to polls depend on the question asked - even if the options are the same in effect!
But that wasn't the option they were given at the referendum. As @Dadge has pointed out, that was not a choice they were asked to make. Although the loons have got hold of the Conch shell, and they would have you believe otherwise, it really is the case that Norway is not in the EU. Amazing, yes, but that is the case.
So the ballot paper asked us if, amongst other options, we might like to be like Norway. Not a sausage about the foreigners.
It's important to note that the Grieve amendment is not limited to requiring the PM to make a statement in the Commons within three days, it requires the government to hold a ‘plan B’ vote within three sitting days - i.e., by Monday week. So she will have just six days to extract meaningful concessions from the EU27.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
Maybe MPs should hold another vote on the Grieve amendment as its possible some MPs were not clear what they were voting for?!
Its been a hour since the vote and amidst the drama there has been little attempt to drill down what this means and what the processe required is on Sky or the BBC.
Could Andrea Leadsom announce parliament will rise on Tuesday evening - see you in 21 days - so 3 sitting days could be 24 days later? In theory yes - in practice of course no - but could May stall for time over sitting days?
Comments
https://calendar.parliament.uk/calendar/Commons/All/2019/1/18/Daily
What you think is completely immaterial.
May will just do Whatever The Fuck She Wants.
Has anything else dramatic happened in the last couple of hours?
'Go away and come back when you know what you want' is what May & Barclay are likely to be told.
But if the changes happen we do move out of OxWAb into the city seat.
You are rivalling my position as Patroniser in Chief, mind.
Quite soon the Tories may well split big time on meaningful votes.
Indeed. The PB Tories have been fapping about Bercow's departure for what seems like decades.
And Germany, who won't allow a Hard Border under any circumstances. (So how you gonna deal with that No Deal Hard Border, Mutti? Rather suggest she is urging a rethink to prevent that very No Deal. Come on, drop the backstop you say won't be needed - and suddenly 100+ Tory MPs fall into line.....)
Maybe May can contrive to lose some more votes before the Meaningful Vote and then it won't seem so meaningful after all...
Jesus wept.
She should have brought together all sides of the debate to forge, together with the EU, a sensible, consensus-building Brexit.
But she didn't. She treated it like a GE and, like GEs, that set up the expectation of "the other side" having another crack at it via subsequent votes, in this case a second referendum.
By my reckoning, the absolute earliest that a GE could be held following a failed vote next Tuesday is
15 Jan - WA vote
16 Jan - VoNC
31 Jan - 2-week FTPA period expires
7 Mar - General election
However, I'm not sure whether the 31 January would count as the first day of the 25 working days of the campaign. If not, then we'd be looking at March 14 as the earliest polling day and it's not impossible to see how you could get to a point where the earliest date is 28 March or later. In that case, does Labour keep pushing for a GE, even though the Commons hasn't 9and hence can't) ratified any deal?
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1083009519503003648?s=21
*throws hat in ring*
I didn't claim that they had. I merely pointed out that the government is crippled. Losing votes a plenty.
Fairly predictably, I imagine some of the Conservative activists on here have been pretty negative about Layla. Well, that's to be expected. Any possible leader of any other party is immediately denigrated and mocked.
As for future Conservative leaders, well, the Tories do a very good line in parody and self-mockery which seems to consist of calling each other "sh1ts" or similar. Ho hum.
While I don't agree with her on policy (at least in this instance), I think if Layla Moran wants to be leader, fine, let her put herself forward and along with other Party members, I'll go to the hustings and see what she has to say.
She has impressed me thus far not least for wrenching Oxford West from the Conservatives last time. I do want to hear she would take the challenge to Labour and particularly how she could draw moderate Labour supporters toward the LDs.
I have friends across the political spectrum and I abhor the posturing and preening of many modern politicians. I hold much of the current HoC in contempt. The quality of our political class is woefully low. And that applies to all parties.
We are in a difficult situation. Rational debate now seems impossible. I just want it over with. And I am not alone in that.
You might think that is a good thing, given the very limited time still left. It's certainly a substantive amendment.
Why even our very own @Richard_Tyndall would have been happy with continued FoM. Don't even get me started on the single market and customs union.
She instituted red lines before she had thought it through. It was designed to appeal to her hard Brexit wing as she knew (and of course she was right) that they would cause trouble and in any case, she was set on a hard Brexit herself.
No mitigation for this, Richard - she owns it.
Bercow’s gamble was that he is protected by a double majority: that a majority of MPs will vote for Grieve’s amendment, meaning that he can say he is acting as he should as Speaker, and facilitating the will of the house, and that furthermore, he is protected by a majority of MPs who believe that he is on their side against the executive. Had that gamble been lost, Bercow would certainly have faced an organised and potentially successful attempt to oust him as Speaker. But it wasn’t, so he survives, protected by the one rule in Westminster that really matters.
But I’m not sure that the gamble will work out that well for Grieve himself and the other supporters of another In-Out referendum. Why? Well, because while they don’t agree with Theresa May on much, they do share an interest: which is to run out the clock to the point where they can cobble together a majority in parliament to secure another referendum, something they are presently not in a position to do. By shortening the amount of time that May has to delay, Grieve has also made it less likely that a parliamentary majority for a second referendum will ever emerge.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2019/01/what-does-john-bercow-s-unprecedented-action-mean-brexit-and-him
Cable will stand down in the second quarter of this year. The media will talk up the possibility of Layla standing; she won't.
The contest will be between Jo Swinson and Ed Davey, with Jo winning.
I believe even a significant proportion of remain voters still prefer control over migration, just not enough to vote Leave.
Plan B could be the same as Plan A with some frilly bits added. Unless parliament decides to dissolve she can sit there for the next 12 months. There arent the numbers to unseat the government unless large numbers of tories wish to hand the keys to Jezza. And the Tories cant unseat her until December. Really she can now piss them all about as they rely on her being responsible in a way MPs have not.
"Some huge percentage" = 50% ?!?!?
Your conflation of those who considered it the "most important issue" with those who "cared about it" is just preposterous.
You're saying that half of 52% view it as an issue which makes 26%, but you're then acting as if zero remain voters care about it. If even a third of remain voters want control of migration out of Brexit then that is a further 16% not 0%.
A form of Brexit which left FoM untouched would be a complete travesty.
(If it is to agree with me then brilliant post.)
And in reality, nothing has changed. The government cannot magic up a Norway Plus agreement from thin air. The only solutions are Deal, No Deal and Remain: the same as they always were.
Her biggest mistake has nothing to do with her approach to Brexit. It was calling and then botching the 2017 general election.
Regarding the 'framing' of the deal, yes, spot on. The deal should not be referred to as 'the deal'. It should be called 'a negotiated exit from the European Union'.
Random 'honourable' member stands up in the House or hits the TV studios:
"I respect the result of the 2016 referendum, of course I do, but I'm sorry I just cannot support a negotiated exit from the European Union."
See the difference?
You could equally quote other polls like this one which suggested 86% of Tory and two thirds of Labour voters wanted to reduce EU immigration. - which implies at the least they want some sort of reform/ending of freedom of movement or at least restricting access to welfare.
But like support for a people's vote on the deal vs a second referendum on Brexit voters responses to polls depend on the question asked - even if the options are the same in effect!
https://www.politico.eu/article/poll-three-quarters-of-brits-back-dramatic-fall-in-immigration/
This agitating against the deal, and also opposed to no deal, need to actually decide what they're for.
Intriguing that momentum may've shifted against May's deal. Given it was seen as a dead duck back in December, that's almost impressive.
Edited extra bit: those*
I just tweeted about proofreading and almost missed a typo in it.
A lot of the vote shift seemed to happen in the Ab part of the constituency which had been heading in that direction significantly at council level.
I have no recollection of seeing her being personally active in driving any particular tactical agenda. There were those at work on it but it seemed to be from Labour modereates looking for a new home.
There was zero LD canvassing in my part of Jericho and very little leafleting.
It really is the quiet ones you have to watch.
And I'm sure PB is the only place in the country where most Leavers don't care about FoM.
That could pass HoC, satisfy the 2016 referendum and give all sides something to aim for. Alas. Will never happen.
https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1083011590507687936
And I disagree with your "travesty". Politics is about compromise.
(1) He's too arrogant to admit he has a problem with spelling.
(2) He thinks bad spelling helps him because many of his supporters have the same problem.
The recall petition in North Antrim only just fell short at 7,099 of the 7,543 signatures required. With her own party against her, as well as the opposition, you would hope that the petition would succeed.
(3) He doesn't care enough about spelling to get it right.
It's laughable to say that she's tried to come up with a compromise deal - she's got the best deal she can based on what she wants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state
if UK governments had taken on board voters concerns earlier there would never have been a Brexit.
So the ballot paper asked us if, amongst other options, we might like to be like Norway. Not a sausage about the foreigners.
Its been a hour since the vote and amidst the drama there has been little attempt to drill down what this means and what the processe required is on Sky or the BBC.
Could Andrea Leadsom announce parliament will rise on Tuesday evening - see you in 21 days - so 3 sitting days could be 24 days later? In theory yes - in practice of course no - but could May stall for time over sitting days?