politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Osborne’s Standard has surely got this right – TMay is in office but not in power
Today’s ?@EveningStandard?: PM is in office but not in power – as rebels take control, EU offers delay and Chancellor again suggests compromise deal pic.twitter.com/BAbPHLSf9c
The anti-referendum amendment had sweet FA to do with the substantive motion. Of course it shouldn't be called.
That may well be sound, but no doubt many examples can be found of allowed amendments which had FA to do with the substantive motion. It could well be another example of right decision for wrong reason.
It does seem awfully random what will and won't be allowed, and I have no idea how he decides on these things (on things other than Brexit his own politics will be less apparent), but the rules seem to give him total discretion so that's that.
A footnote is that Oliver used to be the thinking man's Brexiteer, to the point that we agreed to write a book together called "Double Vision on Europe", in which we'd agree what the facts were and put our alternative pro- and anti-EU views on what conclusion should be drawn (we spiked it when he was promoted to the Shadow Cabinet and no longer could express independent views). He's now in predominantly Remainer company, presumably because he shares their horror at No Deal.
You and Mr Poll Tax wanted to write a book?
And who exactly did you think would be stupid enough to want to read it nevermind wasting their money buying it?
A bit unkind. Perhaps it was for the joy of creating something than whether others would care for it?
The anti-referendum amendment had sweet FA to do with the substantive motion. Of course it shouldn't be called.
That may well be sound, but no doubt many examples can be found of allowed amendments which had FA to do with the substantive motion. It could well be another example of right decision for wrong reason.
It does seem awfully random what will and won't be allowed, and I have no idea how he decides on these things (on things other than Brexit his own politics will be less apparent), but the rules seem to give him total discretion so that's that.
I like this.
Amendment to have a referendum - yeah ok that's relevant Amendment not to have a referendum - no that's completely off topic.
I understand TMays fixation on getting The Deal through. This is A Legacy Thing.
What looks better in the history books: “PM who slogged away for 2.5 turbulent years in No.10 to deliver a Brexit deal and open new chapter in history” or “PM who faffed about for 2.5 years in No.10 trying to get Brexit sorted but it turned out to be a massive waste of time and never happened.”
In the case of the former, she might go down in history as a mid-tier leader: deeply flawed but there for a purpose which she delivered. If the latter I’m afraid she probably joins the ranks of the very lowest, most useless and best-forgotten PMs.
The last roll of the dice she has to get this through next week is to explain that her successor will be negotiating the juicy bits - i.e the future relationship, and she will resign once Brexit goes through. She has done her duty and served her purpose. Leadership contest over summer, she does the prep-work on the future relationship in the background (but nothing substantive), new leader handover at conference. Lots of fixed smiled Tories waving her goodbye and well done (just please don’t come back).
Might not work, but blimey if I was in her position I think I’d be trying it. The alternative is pretty dismal.
Once some doofus calls a referendum you take away the freedom of the government to do whatever it thinks best. She's made a reasonable stab at negotiating something that's as close to the promises made by the Leave campaign as the existence of an external reality will allow, and she's letting parliament decide whether it wants it, which it doesn't, because the promises made by the Leave campaign were retarded and the people involved are nuts.
In office but not in power is the correct positioning.
What is the value of n (positive integer >2) in MVn at which the argument that you can't hold another referendum, because asking people the same question twice is anti democratic, starts to look a bit silly, given that electorate 2019 differs from electorate 2016 whereas the HoC is the same people all the time?
May has faults, but let's face it, even Cicero or Pericles would fail to get this lot to agree on anything.
I think when people say that May always had an impossible job, they forget how high she was riding before she called the GE, and how many options she had before she drew her red lines.
What is the value of n (positive integer >2) in MVn at which the argument that you can't hold another referendum, because asking people the same question twice is anti democratic, starts to look a bit silly, given that electorate 2019 differs from electorate 2016 whereas the HoC is the same people all the time?
I don't think there's any solution unless you relax the constraint that n > 2.
Surely Labour won't vote with Wollaston? If Wollaston doesn't pass it's a huge setback for the people's vote. If it does though it's game on.
Free vote, I guess?
Weird for Wollaston to put it forward without Labour being on board though, especially since presumably one of the indicative votes next week would be for 2nd ref, if that goes through.
Only explanations I can think of are either:
1. TIG really believes that Labour will never whip for a 2nd ref 2. TIG cares more about embarrassing Corbyn than getting a 2nd ref.
Surely Labour won't vote with Wollaston? If Wollaston doesn't pass it's a huge setback for the people's vote. If it does though it's game on.
Free vote, I guess?
Weird for Wollaston to put it forward without Labour being on board though, especially since presumably one of the indicative votes next week would be for 2nd ref, if that goes through.
Only explanations I can think of are either:
1. TIG really believes that Labour will never whip for a 2nd ref 2. TIG cares more about embarrassing Corbyn than getting a 2nd ref.
Tig know there's no parliament majority for it so they can propose on principle
The DUP won't just flip because we're running out of time though.
Exactly and the number of Labour rebels seem to be holding steady. There are probably the numbers to pass a soft Brexit in the CU+SM space. May needs to change the Political Statement and she should get two thirds of her MPS and the bulk of Labour to support it. But it would split her party and so she sticks to Plan A to grim death.
I can see Bercow accepting MV3 but not MV4, on the basis that four times is stretching Erskine-May too far.
Which would be faintly hilarious if MV3 then fails narrowly.
Think he'll have to accept it if it fails narrowly. Momentum would be with May. But I have my doubts it will be that close judging by noises from ERG and DUP.
The DUP won't just flip because we're running out of time though.
Exactly and the number of Labour rebels seem to be holding steady. There are probably the numbers to pass a soft Brexit in the CU+SM space. May needs to change the Political Statement and she should get two thirds of her MPS and the bulk of Labour to support it. But it would split her party and so she sticks to Plan A to grim death.
Yep, Corbyn was more conciliatory than he had to be in his reply last night.
I would say other than Brexit, May is in power - she has a working majority over pretty much everyting else. Don't forget Osborne is a has-been, stuck in his newspaper gnawing the ends of his old plots, a toothless shadow trying and failing to regain some of his former substance.
May has faults, but let's face it, even Cicero or Pericles would fail to get this lot to agree on anything.
I think when people say that May always had an impossible job, they forget how high she was riding before she called the GE, and how many options she had before she drew her red lines.
Yes. Her original sin was the hubris with which she established her initial red lines. Even if Lab (as they no doubt would have) had dismissed an early appeal for a big tent approach, that she had made it would give a lot less cover for them voting against her deal now.
May has faults, but let's face it, even Cicero or Pericles would fail to get this lot to agree on anything.
I think when people say that May always had an impossible job, they forget how high she was riding before she called the GE, and how many options she had before she drew her red lines.
Well, yes, her biggest mistake was failing to win an overall majority. It's not just that it meant lost votes in Parliament, but lost authority overall. Had she won 340 seats, things would be very different.
What is the value of n (positive integer >2) in MVn at which the argument that you can't hold another referendum, because asking people the same question twice is anti democratic, starts to look a bit silly, given that electorate 2019 differs from electorate 2016 whereas the HoC is the same people all the time?
A second vote will be just as legitimate as the first one - maybe more so given the shenanigans of that one. If you are instinctively Remain but think the government should get on with it and resent being asked again, you can vote Leave this time. If you are Leave, you will vote Leave. If at the end of all that, Remain wins, it's because people have collectively changed their minds. Democracy wins!
My objection with a second referendum is that the question doesn't get any more sensible by being asked twice. But that's a different issue.
A footnote is that Oliver used to be the thinking man's Brexiteer, to the point that we agreed to write a book together called "Double Vision on Europe", in which we'd agree what the facts were and put our alternative pro- and anti-EU views on what conclusion should be drawn (we spiked it when he was promoted to the Shadow Cabinet and no longer could express independent views). He's now in predominantly Remainer company, presumably because he shares their horror at No Deal.
You and Mr Poll Tax wanted to write a book?
And who exactly did you think would be stupid enough to want to read it nevermind wasting their money buying it?
A bit unkind. Perhaps it was for the joy of creating something than whether others would care for it?
The world is full of books that few people want to read. The case for this one was that at the time (1998) all kinds of misleading statements about the EU were making it difficult to form an informed view. We felt we were forensic enough to agree what the facts were despite our diametrically opposed opinions, and lucid enough to suggest alternative conclusions for people to consider. I think there would have been an audience for it, but who knows?
May has faults, but let's face it, even Cicero or Pericles would fail to get this lot to agree on anything.
I think when people say that May always had an impossible job, they forget how high she was riding before she called the GE, and how many options she had before she drew her red lines.
Well, yes, her biggest mistake was failing to win an overall majority. It's not just that it meant lost votes in Parliament, but lost authority overall. Had she won 340 seats, things would be very different.
That's just politics; election setbacks happen all the time. Her biggest mistake was failing to appreciate that a solution would therefore have to lie outside her office and closest advisers. She only woke up to this simple truth relatively recently.
I understand TMays fixation on getting The Deal through. This is A Legacy Thing.
What looks better in the history books: “PM who slogged away for 2.5 turbulent years in No.10 to deliver a Brexit deal and open new chapter in history” or “PM who faffed about for 2.5 years in No.10 trying to get Brexit sorted but it turned out to be a massive waste of time and never happened.”
In the case of the former, she might go down in history as a mid-tier leader: deeply flawed but there for a purpose which she delivered. If the latter I’m afraid she probably joins the ranks of the very lowest, most useless and best-forgotten PMs.
The last roll of the dice she has to get this through next week is to explain that her successor will be negotiating the juicy bits - i.e the future relationship, and she will resign once Brexit goes through. She has done her duty and served her purpose. Leadership contest over summer, she does the prep-work on the future relationship in the background (but nothing substantive), new leader handover at conference. Lots of fixed smiled Tories waving her goodbye and well done (just please don’t come back).
Might not work, but blimey if I was in her position I think I’d be trying it. The alternative is pretty dismal.
Who cares what TMay's legacy is or whether the Tory or Labour parties stay together. It's time MPs thought about the UK and stopped worrying about such trivialities.
Control of the process is now clearly passing to Parliament as last night's votes show and for some sort of CU and SM BINO, Tusk has also signalled the EU would grant a lengthy extension if the UK shifted in that direction today
EU summit is on the 21st and is pretty much the last chance to get an extension, as all the 27 are in the same room. After that it would be far more difficult and improbable.
I understand TMays fixation on getting The Deal through. This is A Legacy Thing.
What looks better in the history books: “PM who slogged away for 2.5 turbulent years in No.10 to deliver a Brexit deal and open new chapter in history” or “PM who faffed about for 2.5 years in No.10 trying to get Brexit sorted but it turned out to be a massive waste of time and never happened.”
In the case of the former, she might go down in history as a mid-tier leader: deeply flawed but there for a purpose which she delivered. If the latter I’m afraid she probably joins the ranks of the very lowest, most useless and best-forgotten PMs.
The last roll of the dice she has to get this through next week is to explain that her successor will be negotiating the juicy bits - i.e the future relationship, and she will resign once Brexit goes through. She has done her duty and served her purpose. Leadership contest over summer, she does the prep-work on the future relationship in the background (but nothing substantive), new leader handover at conference. Lots of fixed smiled Tories waving her goodbye and well done (just please don’t come back).
Might not work, but blimey if I was in her position I think I’d be trying it. The alternative is pretty dismal.
Who cares what TMay's legacy is or whether the Tory or Labour parties stay together. It's time MPs thought about the UK and stopped worrying about such trivialities.
TMay.
All PMs care about their legacy. One of the central attractions of having held the Top Job is having something to show for it at the end of the day, once you’re gone.
What is the value of n (positive integer >2) in MVn at which the argument that you can't hold another referendum, because asking people the same question twice is anti democratic, starts to look a bit silly, given that electorate 2019 differs from electorate 2016 whereas the HoC is the same people all the time?
Extension question which I think is even more interesting: Find minimum value of n where there exists an MP i where MVn(i) = against but MV(n-1)(i) = for.
i.e. how many times can May bring the deal back before MPs start getting so fed up they move *away* from supporting it?
Control of the process is now clearly passing to Parliament as last night's votes show and for some sort of CU and SM BINO, Tusk has also signalled the EU would grant a lengthy extension if the UK shifted in that direction today
Control of the process is now clearly passing to Parliament as last night's votes show and for some sort of CU and SM BINO, Tusk has also signalled the EU would grant a lengthy extension if the UK shifted in that direction today
It seems to me that control is passing to nobody.
Beginning to look best to leave running the country to faceless unelected EU bureaucrats than our House of Commons... let's give back control!
Control of the process is now clearly passing to Parliament as last night's votes show and for some sort of CU and SM BINO, Tusk has also signalled the EU would grant a lengthy extension if the UK shifted in that direction today
Control of the process is now clearly passing to Parliament as last night's votes show and for some sort of CU and SM BINO, Tusk has also signalled the EU would grant a lengthy extension if the UK shifted in that direction today
It seems to me that control is passing to nobody.
I can’t believe we time out in almost exactly 2 weeks time.
Control of the process is now clearly passing to Parliament as last night's votes show and for some sort of CU and SM BINO, Tusk has also signalled the EU would grant a lengthy extension if the UK shifted in that direction today
It seems to me that control is passing to nobody.
Control is passing to a cabal of unrepresentative MPs and a speaker who are hell bent on ignoring the referendum.
Good luck to anyone trying to run the country if they succeed.
May has faults, but let's face it, even Cicero or Pericles would fail to get this lot to agree on anything.
I think when people say that May always had an impossible job, they forget how high she was riding before she called the GE, and how many options she had before she drew her red lines.
Well, yes, her biggest mistake was failing to win an overall majority. It's not just that it meant lost votes in Parliament, but lost authority overall. Had she won 340 seats, things would be very different.
That's just politics; election setbacks happen all the time. Her biggest mistake was failing to appreciate that a solution would therefore have to lie outside her office and closest advisers. She only woke up to this simple truth relatively recently.
Her closest advisors were a big part of the reason why she didn’t get the seats.
May has faults, but let's face it, even Cicero or Pericles would fail to get this lot to agree on anything.
I think when people say that May always had an impossible job, they forget how high she was riding before she called the GE, and how many options she had before she drew her red lines.
Yes. Her original sin was the hubris with which she established her initial red lines. Even if Lab (as they no doubt would have) had dismissed an early appeal for a big tent approach, that she had made it would give a lot less cover for them voting against her deal now.
She did make that appeal
I think Corbyn emailed her the Labour manifesto and said he would be delighted to help her implement the attached programme
Control of the process is now clearly passing to Parliament as last night's votes show and for some sort of CU and SM BINO, Tusk has also signalled the EU would grant a lengthy extension if the UK shifted in that direction today
It seems to me that control is passing to nobody.
Control is passing to a cabal of unrepresentative MPs and a speaker who are hell bent on ignoring the referendum.
Good luck to anyone trying to run the country if they succeed.
Nah, the HoC is accurately reflecting a British public lost, conflicted and confused about the fiasco of Brexit.
Control of the process is now clearly passing to Parliament as last night's votes show and for some sort of CU and SM BINO, Tusk has also signalled the EU would grant a lengthy extension if the UK shifted in that direction today
It seems to me that control is passing to nobody.
Control is passing to a cabal of unrepresentative MPs and a speaker who are hell bent on ignoring the referendum.
Good luck to anyone trying to run the country if they succeed.
Nah, the HoC is accurately reflecting a British public lost, conflicted and confused about the fiasco of Brexit.
Disagree - the public want Brexit over. The HoC wants to can kick forever rather than take a decision.
I understand TMays fixation on getting The Deal through. This is A Legacy Thing.
What looks better in the history books: “PM who slogged away for 2.5 turbulent years in No.10 to deliver a Brexit deal and open new chapter in history” or “PM who faffed about for 2.5 years in No.10 trying to get Brexit sorted but it turned out to be a massive waste of time and never happened.”
In the case of the former, she might go down in history as a mid-tier leader: deeply flawed but there for a purpose which she delivered. If the latter I’m afraid she probably joins the ranks of the very lowest, most useless and best-forgotten PMs.
The last roll of the dice she has to get this through next week is to explain that her successor will be negotiating the juicy bits - i.e the future relationship, and she will resign once Brexit goes through. She has done her duty and served her purpose. Leadership contest over summer, she does the prep-work on the future relationship in the background (but nothing substantive), new leader handover at conference. Lots of fixed smiled Tories waving her goodbye and well done (just please don’t come back).
Might not work, but blimey if I was in her position I think I’d be trying it. The alternative is pretty dismal.
Who cares what TMay's legacy is or whether the Tory or Labour parties stay together. It's time MPs thought about the UK and stopped worrying about such trivialities.
EU summit is on the 21st and is pretty much the last chance to get an extension, as all the 27 are in the same room. After that it would be far more difficult and improbable.
My guess is that a conditional decision would be taken at the summit to approve a 2 month/2 year/whatever extension if circumstance X comes about before 10.59pm on Fri 29th. (eg "the council approves a 2 month administrative extension if the UK HoC has approved a deal before exit"; "the council approves an extension until Dec 31 2020 if the UK HoC casts a binding vote to call a referendum" etc etc). In any case, as Greece found out, a quick conference call does the trick in extremis.
Have the whips yet advised MPs to cancel their constituency engagements that night?!!!
What is the value of n (positive integer >2) in MVn at which the argument that you can't hold another referendum, because asking people the same question twice is anti democratic, starts to look a bit silly, given that electorate 2019 differs from electorate 2016 whereas the HoC is the same people all the time?
I don't think there's any solution unless you relax the constraint that n > 2.
Or that n is real. I think that imaginary numbers apply here.
They may not have the numbers. The lib dems and TIG do not want an election nor do others who may well absent themselves. Also each one would have the whip withdrawn immediately and would have to stand as an independent
Futhermore, this only goes through with DUP support so they would not have that either
They may not have the numbers. The lib dems and TIG do not want an election nor do others who may well absent themselves. Also each one would have the whip withdrawn immediately and would have to stand as an independent
Futhermore, this only goes through with DUP support so they would not have that either
Corbyn would love the TIG and Lib Dems propping up the Tories.
Control of the process is now clearly passing to Parliament as last night's votes show and for some sort of CU and SM BINO, Tusk has also signalled the EU would grant a lengthy extension if the UK shifted in that direction today
It seems to me that control is passing to nobody.
Control is passing to a cabal of unrepresentative MPs and a speaker who are hell bent on ignoring the referendum.
Good luck to anyone trying to run the country if they succeed.
Nah, the HoC is accurately reflecting a British public lost, conflicted and confused about the fiasco of Brexit.
Disagree - the public want Brexit over. The HoC wants to can kick forever rather than take a decision.
Yes, but the public (like Parliament) wants it over in different ways!
May has faults, but let's face it, even Cicero or Pericles would fail to get this lot to agree on anything.
I think when people say that May always had an impossible job, they forget how high she was riding before she called the GE, and how many options she had before she drew her red lines.
Yes. Her original sin was the hubris with which she established her initial red lines. Even if Lab (as they no doubt would have) had dismissed an early appeal for a big tent approach, that she had made it would give a lot less cover for them voting against her deal now.
She did make that appeal
I think Corbyn emailed her the Labour manifesto and said he would be delighted to help her implement the attached programme
The fact that I don't remember this and that it hasn't been used by May, for example at every PMQs since, is indicative of the problem.
Control of the process is now clearly passing to Parliament as last night's votes show and for some sort of CU and SM BINO, Tusk has also signalled the EU would grant a lengthy extension if the UK shifted in that direction today
It seems to me that control is passing to nobody.
Control is passing to a cabal of unrepresentative MPs and a speaker who are hell bent on ignoring the referendum.
Good luck to anyone trying to run the country if they succeed.
Nah, the HoC is accurately reflecting a British public lost, conflicted and confused about the fiasco of Brexit.
Disagree - the public want Brexit over. The HoC wants to can kick forever rather than take a decision.
It is always amusing when people irrationally claim to know the mind of the public (or worse, "the people"). It is though "the public" is actually some kind of super-mind, like Lovelock's earth in the Gaia principle. it is complete nonsense. "The People" do not exist, just a lot of confused individuals, some with logic, some without.
Comments
It does seem awfully random what will and won't be allowed, and I have no idea how he decides on these things (on things other than Brexit his own politics will be less apparent), but the rules seem to give him total discretion so that's that.
Bercow is very much looking forward to being a remainer hero, but sometimes he can still be right about things of course. A bit unkind. Perhaps it was for the joy of creating something than whether others would care for it?
Amendment to have a referendum - yeah ok that's relevant
Amendment not to have a referendum - no that's completely off topic.
What looks better in the history books: “PM who slogged away for 2.5 turbulent years in No.10 to deliver a Brexit deal and open new chapter in history” or “PM who faffed about for 2.5 years in No.10 trying to get Brexit sorted but it turned out to be a massive waste of time and never happened.”
In the case of the former, she might go down in history as a mid-tier leader: deeply flawed but there for a purpose which she delivered. If the latter I’m afraid she probably joins the ranks of the very lowest, most useless and best-forgotten PMs.
The last roll of the dice she has to get this through next week is to explain that her successor will be negotiating the juicy bits - i.e the future relationship, and she will resign once Brexit goes through. She has done her duty and served her purpose. Leadership contest over summer, she does the prep-work on the future relationship in the background (but nothing substantive), new leader handover at conference. Lots of fixed smiled Tories waving her goodbye and well done (just please don’t come back).
Might not work, but blimey if I was in her position I think I’d be trying it. The alternative is pretty dismal.
May has faults, but let's face it, even Cicero or Pericles would fail to get this lot to agree on anything.
Once some doofus calls a referendum you take away the freedom of the government to do whatever it thinks best. She's made a reasonable stab at negotiating something that's as close to the promises made by the Leave campaign as the existence of an external reality will allow, and she's letting parliament decide whether it wants it, which it doesn't, because the promises made by the Leave campaign were retarded and the people involved are nuts.
In office but not in power is the correct positioning.
https://twitter.com/ianssmart/status/1106170677307105280
*I know FTPA, but the opposition can't really refuse, as we saw last time.
Weird for Wollaston to put it forward without Labour being on board though, especially since presumably one of the indicative votes next week would be for 2nd ref, if that goes through.
Only explanations I can think of are either:
1. TIG really believes that Labour will never whip for a 2nd ref
2. TIG cares more about embarrassing Corbyn than getting a 2nd ref.
Which would be faintly hilarious if MV3 then fails narrowly.
Are the ERG and the DUP just about to fold, only to find MV3 is ruled Out of Order?
Heart of Stone...
"The Chair does his or her best to facilitate debate and to allow the House to speak"
My objection with a second referendum is that the question doesn't get any more sensible by being asked twice. But that's a different issue.
Not sure what it has to do with a point of order but the numbers should see it lose with all but 10 or so conservatives + the DUP + 30 + labour mps
All PMs care about their legacy. One of the central attractions of having held the Top Job is having something to show for it at the end of the day, once you’re gone.
Find minimum value of n where there exists an MP i where MVn(i) = against but MV(n-1)(i) = for.
i.e. how many times can May bring the deal back before MPs start getting so fed up they move *away* from supporting it?
Incredible scenes. GE getting more likely.
That will go in a heartbeat.
Good luck to anyone trying to run the country if they succeed.
I think Corbyn emailed her the Labour manifesto and said he would be delighted to help her implement the attached programme
The ERG are sub Mark Reckless traitors.
'He says his decision on which amendments to pick "followed considerable reflection" this morning.'
Have the whips yet advised MPs to cancel their constituency engagements that night?!!!
* New Con leader
* Destruction of TIG
* A slew of wet deselections
* Low chance of a Lab majority
* New speaker
* Fewer Nats
A far better scenario
Futhermore, this only goes through with DUP support so they would not have that either
No general election and Corbyn installed as PM promising to keep us in the customs union
A novel approach to tackling knife-crime; stick with the comments for the entertainment..
https://twitter.com/scottmann4NC/status/1106128906480951296
https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1105875603163627520