In particular, look down the bottom at the abstentions, which tell you where there may be extra votes to get stuff over the line.
I wonder who was the single Tory voting for Labour's plan? And their chances of getting to stand again as a Tory in the next election?
It was ............................... Ken Clarke !
A bid for PM in a unity Government? Or old age just kicking in?
Probably in reality he was taking a view that he would support anything other than no deal, because to do so would increase the chance of one option gaining a majority.
It’s called compromise. An old fashioned concept. May whips a CU, gives enough people a reason to support the deal, which thereby passes. She then retires having passed Brexit. We move on.
The risk is that adding a CU into the already toxic brew of the fucking shit deal creates more tory recusants.
The key to resolving this however is gaining opposition support to outweigh the Tory no surrender brigade. Any option that attracts significant opposition support can afford to lose some more Tories.
Or the opposite -- the PM could persuade the "no deal" backbenchers that "no deal" is not the panacea they imagine.
There is no reason not to run both approaches in parallel, since they are not contradictory and are aimed at different audiences. A better Prime Minister, or even a better LotO, might do that but we are stuck with the ones we have.
There was some speculation yesterday that the DUP might simply abstain in MV3. Their statement didn't indicate that but if they did does anyone have a feel for whether enough ERG members have now changed their position? Last time out May lost by 149. 10 abstentions brings the margin of defeat down to 139. That means 70 switchers. That seems a lot.
I just think that if the PM genuinely wants to get her deal through, and she recognises she's on the way out regardless (neither of which is a given) she tells the country and the house that Friday's MV3 vote is a confidence one. How many Con MPs vote against then? Almost none, maybe just Ken Clarke. What do the DUP do? I think abstain. How much do TIG fancy an early election? About as much as they fancied by-elections. She still needs some Labour leavers to switch or abstain, but it's her only real shot.
PS I don't think she will do this.
I didn’t know there was the ability to make any vote a confidence one under the FTPA. Another Cameron triumph.
Serves May right for playing silly beggars with the FTPA and calling the 2017 election. Without the FTPA, a government could make all votes confidence votes, and we end up with very bad government.
Hancock would be a great leader of what’s left of the Cameroon wing of the Tory party, but the idea that he could bridge the gap with the ERG ultras is unlikely. The best thing for the Tory party and the rest of us would be to choose a direction and split.
The task for May is simple, amend her deal to account for the customs union and/or a vote and whip that. That would pass the Bercow test and provide a reason to unite both sides of the house. She would lose her ultras, but that is a good thing for her and her successor.
May gets to decide what the Tory party will look like for a generation. Moderate and pragmatic or uncompromising and theological.
It is difficult to see why May should whip for options she doesn’t like and are unpopular in the Conservative Party, simply because she is in Government. You could just as easily insist that Corbyn should whip his MPs for eg. the deal.
At best I think she might have to offer a free vote and see what happens.
Because the government is supposed to be in office.
If Parliament is running the show I don’t see why Government ministers should have less freedom in how to vote than anyone else. It’s one thing for them not to be whipped against something with which they disagree (aka free vote) but realistically they can’t be whipped for it.
Since we've already been treated to the spectacle of a government minister speaking to advocate a motion then voting against it himself, it's already Liberty Hall.
I think this explains succinctly why Tezza refuses to quit before Brexit is done
This overlooks the fact that, due to her upbringing and background, the togetherness of the Conservative party and Britain also mean roughly the same for her. I think the electoral meets the psychological with her party unity obsession at all costs.
In particular, look down the bottom at the abstentions, which tell you where there may be extra votes to get stuff over the line.
Yeah that chart isn't great news for the "confirmatory referendum" lot. Customs & Common Market 2.0 looking better than their initial Ayes.
The question for Monday is whether if options are combined - for example a confirmatory referendum on a deal with a CU - do you build support by bringing together the supporters of both, or lose people by giving them more to object to?
I suspect you lose people
If you didn’t vote for the referendum it’s because either you don’t want one on principle or because you don’t like the uncertainty
I’m not sure tweaking one possible outcome changes that materially
Hence you lose customs union supporters who dislike a referendum
This overlooks the fact that, due to her upbringing and background, the togetherness of the Conservative party and Britain also mean roughly the same for her. I think the electoral meets the psychological with her party unity obsession at all costs.
Ironic she might facilitate the break up of the union then
If Newton-Dunn is correct (and was a NI journo), and DUP will only fold on the day, if at all, then May may have go for MV3 not knowing if it will pass.
Bizarrely, it will also be a reverse VoNC, since if it passes, she will announce a leaving date.
This overlooks the fact that, due to her upbringing and background, the togetherness of the Conservative party and Britain also mean roughly the same for her. I think the electoral meets the psychological with her party unity obsession at all costs.
Ironic she might facilitate the break up of the union then
In particular, look down the bottom at the abstentions, which tell you where there may be extra votes to get stuff over the line.
I wonder who was the single Tory voting for Labour's plan? And their chances of getting to stand again as a Tory in the next election?
It was ............................... Ken Clarke !
Ah! Demob happy.....
Don’t think so. For a long time he has been one of the few MPs in this shitshow of a Parliament acting like a grownup and on the basis that if one is serious about opposing no deal then an alternative has to be found. Whereas everyone else is continuing to act on the basis that they are against no deal come what May, as long as they get their favoured option.
And of course one of the few to foresee that we would end up where we are by voting against the triggering of article 50. Not because he was pro remain, but because he was against imposing a hard deadline without a plan to escape from it.
In particular, look down the bottom at the abstentions, which tell you where there may be extra votes to get stuff over the line.
I wonder who was the single Tory voting for Labour's plan? And their chances of getting to stand again as a Tory in the next election?
So the SNP abstained on the Customs Union option, which would have passed easily had they supported it. Presumably tactical?
I may have dreamt it, but I'm sure somebody said that CU builds up big problems for the whisky industry? If so - that ain't going anaywhere as an option...
Hancock is a good bet and a better media performer than Hunt or Javid with more charisma.
However now the DUP will still vote down May's Deal it is likely to fail again which means May will stay Tory leader and PM and either ask Parliament to vote to contest the European elections and the EU for a long extension on that basis, shift to her Deal plus permanent Customs Union if that gets a majority on preferences on Monday or call a general election to get a majority for her Deal
It’s called compromise. An old fashioned concept. May whips a CU, gives enough people a reason to support the deal, which thereby passes. She then retires having passed Brexit. We move on.
The risk is that adding a CU into the already toxic brew of the fucking shit deal creates more tory recusants.
The key to resolving this however is gaining opposition support to outweigh the Tory no surrender brigade. Any option that attracts significant opposition support can afford to lose some more Tories.
Why didn’t the SNP or LibDems support the CU option?
Good question. I know they're both anti-Leaving but surely, in the present situation, wouldn't a CU, which provides an opportunity to say 'sorry, can we come back in properly' quite easily. Had they supported, of course, it would have gone trough.
Had London been prepared for Brexit on June 24, 2016, the negotiations might have played out differently.
“The British government should have offered something very, very quickly,” said one high-ranking official of a large EU country. “If the U.K. had said: ‘Here’s the plan,’ we might have accepted it.”
“The British strength was being one member state, being able to define its national interest quickly and making its move quickly,” the official said. “It did not do that.”
Hancock is a good bet and a better media performer than Hunt or Javid with more charisma.
However now the DUP will still vote down May's Deal it is likely to fail again which means May will stay Tory leader and PM and either ask Parliament to vote to contest the European elections and the EU for a long extension on that basis, shift to her Deal plus permanent Customs Union if that gets a majority on preferences on Monday or call a general election to get a majority for her Deal
In particular, look down the bottom at the abstentions, which tell you where there may be extra votes to get stuff over the line.
I wonder who was the single Tory voting for Labour's plan? And their chances of getting to stand again as a Tory in the next election?
So the SNP abstained on the Customs Union option, which would have passed easily had they supported it. Presumably tactical?
I may have dreamt it, but I'm sure somebody said that CU builds up big problems for the whisky industry? If so - that ain't going anaywhere as an option...
Somebody said it on here a couple of hours ago. Apparently Customs union means we have to accept EU tariffs on imports negotiated in FTAs but don’t benefit from the associated lower tariffs on exports. So eg. In a free trade deal with India could get flooded with cheap whisky with no ability to reciprocate. Even within the EU a lot of these FTAs don’t seem so great these days - eg. Japanese one reducing incentives for Japanese to make cars within the single market.
One of the most tedious things about twitter is seeing the same 'wags' make the same joke over and and over...
As always, if you find your twitter feed dismal, unfollow the people who make it worse and find people to follow to make it better. You don't have to follow ranters or sub-Ronnie Corbett joke-tellers if you don't want to.
This overlooks the fact that, due to her upbringing and background, the togetherness of the Conservative party and Britain also mean roughly the same for her. I think the electoral meets the psychological with her party unity obsession at all costs.
Ironic she might facilitate the break up of the union then
No as only No Deal really threatens the Union and May has ruled that out unless the Commons voted for it and remember almost a third of Tory MPs voted against No Deal last night so that splits the Tories too if less so than revoke Article 50 or EUref2
In particular, look down the bottom at the abstentions, which tell you where there may be extra votes to get stuff over the line.
I wonder who was the single Tory voting for Labour's plan? And their chances of getting to stand again as a Tory in the next election?
So the SNP abstained on the Customs Union option, which would have passed easily had they supported it. Presumably tactical?
I may have dreamt it, but I'm sure somebody said that CU builds up big problems for the whisky industry? If so - that ain't going anaywhere as an option...
Somebody said it on here a couple of hours ago. Apparently Customs union means we have to accept EU tariffs on imports negotiated in FTAs but don’t benefit from the associated lower tariffs on exports. So eg. In a free trade deal with India could get flooded with cheap whisky with no ability to reciprocate. Even within the EU a lot of these FTAs don’t seem so great these days - eg. Japanese one reducing incentives for Japanese to make cars within the single market.
These are the kind of issues I remember being raised among Brexiters last time a CU was mooted. This is why I think it will all come down to May's deal + referendum or revocation in the end.
Hancock is a good bet and a better media performer than Hunt or Javid with more charisma.
However now the DUP will still vote down May's Deal it is likely to fail again which means May will stay Tory leader and PM and either ask Parliament to vote to contest the European elections and the EU for a long extension on that basis, shift to her Deal plus permanent Customs Union if that gets a majority on preferences on Monday or call a general election to get a majority for her Deal
Was her Deal plus CU on the table?
Yes it was the Clarke amendment and Juncker has said it could enable reexamination of the backstop
Had London been prepared for Brexit on June 24, 2016, the negotiations might have played out differently.
“The British government should have offered something very, very quickly,” said one high-ranking official of a large EU country. “If the U.K. had said: ‘Here’s the plan,’ we might have accepted it.”
“The British strength was being one member state, being able to define its national interest quickly and making its move quickly,” the official said. “It did not do that.”
So it all tracks back to Cameron & Osborne.....
Or even May for not doing that when she invoked...
That's an EU official making the same point Gove made about us holding the cards.
Hancock is a good bet and a better media performer than Hunt or Javid with more charisma.
However now the DUP will still vote down May's Deal it is likely to fail again which means May will stay Tory leader and PM and either ask Parliament to vote to contest the European elections and the EU for a long extension on that basis, shift to her Deal plus permanent Customs Union if that gets a majority on preferences on Monday or call a general election to get a majority for her Deal
Hancock's plan to let the world and his wife see your health data might undermine him if it breaks through as an issue, which given the prominence of Brexit is by no means certain!
As to what happens on Monday and how Theresa May will respond, your guess might well be better than mine.
There was some speculation yesterday that the DUP might simply abstain in MV3. Their statement didn't indicate that but if they did does anyone have a feel for whether enough ERG members have now changed their position? Last time out May lost by 149. 10 abstentions brings the margin of defeat down to 139. That means 70 switchers. That seems a lot.
I think even with the DUP on board there are over 30 unreconciled Tories. Read the account of Steve Baker addressing the ERG and ask yourself how likely he is to change what we can politely call his mind. He is far from alone.
The account of Steve Baker's rant at the meeting is one of the funniest things I've read.
Hancock is a good bet and a better media performer than Hunt or Javid with more charisma.
However now the DUP will still vote down May's Deal it is likely to fail again which means May will stay Tory leader and PM and either ask Parliament to vote to contest the European elections and the EU for a long extension on that basis, shift to her Deal plus permanent Customs Union if that gets a majority on preferences on Monday or call a general election to get a majority for her Deal
Was her Deal plus CU on the table?
Yes it was the Clarke amendment and Juncker has said it could enable reexamination of the backstop
Ah yes, of course. Nearest to getting through, I think. Probably something like worth looking that again
There was some speculation yesterday that the DUP might simply abstain in MV3. Their statement didn't indicate that but if they did does anyone have a feel for whether enough ERG members have now changed their position? Last time out May lost by 149. 10 abstentions brings the margin of defeat down to 139. That means 70 switchers. That seems a lot.
I think even with the DUP on board there are over 30 unreconciled Tories. Read the account of Steve Baker addressing the ERG and ask yourself how likely he is to change what we can politely call his mind. He is far from alone.
The account of Steve Baker's rant at the meeting is one of the funniest things I've read.
This man was a minister of the crown in the present government. That is terrifying.
When Jose Mourinho was manager at Man Utd they played tepid football which led to 0-0 draws against sides they were expected to beat, the crowd booing, the players angry, and nowhere near the top 4
With the same players and a more positive approach, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer has the crowd eating out of his hand, the players smiling, and and a top 4 finish within sight
There was some speculation yesterday that the DUP might simply abstain in MV3. Their statement didn't indicate that but if they did does anyone have a feel for whether enough ERG members have now changed their position? Last time out May lost by 149. 10 abstentions brings the margin of defeat down to 139. That means 70 switchers. That seems a lot.
I think even with the DUP on board there are over 30 unreconciled Tories. Read the account of Steve Baker addressing the ERG and ask yourself how likely he is to change what we can politely call his mind. He is far from alone.
The account of Steve Baker's rant at the meeting is one of the funniest things I've read.
There was some speculation yesterday that the DUP might simply abstain in MV3. Their statement didn't indicate that but if they did does anyone have a feel for whether enough ERG members have now changed their position? Last time out May lost by 149. 10 abstentions brings the margin of defeat down to 139. That means 70 switchers. That seems a lot.
I think even with the DUP on board there are over 30 unreconciled Tories. Read the account of Steve Baker addressing the ERG and ask yourself how likely he is to change what we can politely call his mind. He is far from alone.
The account of Steve Baker's rant at the meeting is one of the funniest things I've read.
This man was a minister of the crown in the present government. That is terrifying.
Mark Francois was a Minister of State in the previous government.
There was some speculation yesterday that the DUP might simply abstain in MV3. Their statement didn't indicate that but if they did does anyone have a feel for whether enough ERG members have now changed their position? Last time out May lost by 149. 10 abstentions brings the margin of defeat down to 139. That means 70 switchers. That seems a lot.
I think even with the DUP on board there are over 30 unreconciled Tories. Read the account of Steve Baker addressing the ERG and ask yourself how likely he is to change what we can politely call his mind. He is far from alone.
The account of Steve Baker's rant at the meeting is one of the funniest things I've read.
When Jose Mourinho was manager at Man Utd they played tepid football which led to 0-0 draws against sides they were expected to beat, the crowd booing, the players angry, and nowhere near the top 4
With the same players and a more positive approach, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer has the crowd eating out of his hand, the players smiling, and and a top 4 finish within sight
So it could have been done better
According to my wife, the Tories haven't had anyone as handsome as Mourinho since Ivan Massow. They'd need someone with the cut and dash of Massow, and the gravitas and experience of a Clarke or Heseltine.
Instead they've got May or Gove. Liddington at least offers a bit of authority and competence.
These are the kind of issues I remember being raised among Brexiters last time a CU was mooted. This is why I think it will all come down to May's deal + referendum or revocation in the end.
The other problem with the CU route is that it's heavily dependent on Labour votes, which have to be supplied up-front, but then the negotiation happens between the EU, which is obviously looking out for itself, and a Tory PM, constrained by internal Tory politics. If you're a Labour MP you're obviously going to be suspicious that the Tories will pocket your WA vote then go off and negotiate something more to their own liking. And the Tories would have good reason to suspect that Labour MPs aren't really backing it in good faith, so if they go off and negotiate something with the EU Labour will pick up on some unpopular detail of it and pull their support.
The referendum route is a much easier deal for both sides to enforce, because you can just put the necessary quid-pro-quo in binding legislation, so if anyone tries to renege, the whole deal is off.
There was some speculation yesterday that the DUP might simply abstain in MV3. Their statement didn't indicate that but if they did does anyone have a feel for whether enough ERG members have now changed their position? Last time out May lost by 149. 10 abstentions brings the margin of defeat down to 139. That means 70 switchers. That seems a lot.
I think even with the DUP on board there are over 30 unreconciled Tories. Read the account of Steve Baker addressing the ERG and ask yourself how likely he is to change what we can politely call his mind. He is far from alone.
The account of Steve Baker's rant at the meeting is one of the funniest things I've read.
Where can I read that?
I can't link to Twitter right now.
It was very much in the vein of Tony Hancock declaiming "Did Magna Carta die in vain?"
It is highly probable (obviously) that Mrs May will cease to be PM at some point in 2019.
But is it 1.08 probable?
I don't think so - I've laid that for a chunk.
Once a PM has announced she is going, her power (such as it is now) drains away. She wont last long now. Quite possibly sorting out the long extension - which Laura K thinks she'll have to ask for next week - will be her closing chapter. Alternatively, if she decides not to, or if the EU says no, then she gets taken out as part of Parliament's closing off of no deal.
The Mail on Sunday reports that Soames told the MP for Windsor: "You are a chateau bottled nuclear powered ****. You are totally f***ing disloyal, a f***ing disgrace to your party, your fellow MPs, your prime minister and your country."
"This is nothing more than a grotesque f***ing vanity project to promote your absurd f***ing campaign to become party leader. You aren’t up to it, man!"
These are the kind of issues I remember being raised among Brexiters last time a CU was mooted. This is why I think it will all come down to May's deal + referendum or revocation in the end.
The other problem with the CU route is that it's heavily dependent on Labour votes, which have to be supplied up-front, but then the negotiation happens between the EU, which is obviously looking out for itself, and a Tory PM, constrained by internal Tory politics. If you're a Labour MP you're obviously going to be suspicious that the Tories will pocket your WA vote then go off and negotiate something more to their own liking. And the Tories would have good reason to suspect that Labour MPs aren't really backing it in good faith, so if they go off and negotiate something with the EU Labour will pick up on some unpopular detail of it and pull their support.
The referendum route is a much easier deal for both sides to enforce, because you can just put the necessary quid-pro-quo in binding legislation, so if anyone tries to renege, the whole deal is off.
Excellent points. Complex CU negotiations equal both greater fluidity and necessitating cross-party trust that isn't there.
There was some speculation yesterday that the DUP might simply abstain in MV3. Their statement didn't indicate that but if they did does anyone have a feel for whether enough ERG members have now changed their position? Last time out May lost by 149. 10 abstentions brings the margin of defeat down to 139. That means 70 switchers. That seems a lot.
I think even with the DUP on board there are over 30 unreconciled Tories. Read the account of Steve Baker addressing the ERG and ask yourself how likely he is to change what we can politely call his mind. He is far from alone.
The account of Steve Baker's rant at the meeting is one of the funniest things I've read.
In particular, look down the bottom at the extensions, which tell you where there may be extra votes to get stuff over the line.
Underlines that if May whips something other than her deal, we get out of this deadlock.
She has done this once, in favour of the Brady amendment, which passed. I don't think she will do it again. We need a new Prime Minister, one who will leads a government for either a Customs Union or a second referendum. Somehow this PM needs to be the leader of the Conservative Party.
I don't know if this can happen.
This is the problem in a nutshell. A Con PM cannot lead the Government to a Customs Union and it would be arguable on 2nd Ref due to manifesto. She is a short distance from getting the WA but to move to any of the votes she needs loses votes elsewhere. An election might change the arithmetic but necessarily, and the same for a 2nd Ref. The only ones with leeway to move are the EU if they accepted that technology would negate issues on Irish Border not that different to the no deal option they were proposing - their thin argument is that in an emergency the no deal technology option would be acceptable. But not in negotiated deal. Unless they want to avoid no deal as a whole more than the backstop issue then the whole thing is screwed.
There was some speculation yesterday that the DUP might simply abstain in MV3. Their statement didn't indicate that but if they did does anyone have a feel for whether enough ERG members have now changed their position? Last time out May lost by 149. 10 abstentions brings the margin of defeat down to 139. That means 70 switchers. That seems a lot.
I think even with the DUP on board there are over 30 unreconciled Tories. Read the account of Steve Baker addressing the ERG and ask yourself how likely he is to change what we can politely call his mind. He is far from alone.
The account of Steve Baker's rant at the meeting is one of the funniest things I've read.
This man was a minister of the crown in the present government. That is terrifying.
Mark Francois was a Minister of State in the previous government.
You're not making me feel better. Imagine being a backbencher who hadn't held a position and those two had. It would be practically defamatory.
There was some speculation yesterday that the DUP might simply abstain in MV3. Their statement didn't indicate that but if they did does anyone have a feel for whether enough ERG members have now changed their position? Last time out May lost by 149. 10 abstentions brings the margin of defeat down to 139. That means 70 switchers. That seems a lot.
I think even with the DUP on board there are over 30 unreconciled Tories. Read the account of Steve Baker addressing the ERG and ask yourself how likely he is to change what we can politely call his mind. He is far from alone.
The account of Steve Baker's rant at the meeting is one of the funniest things I've read.
Bercow is the only one that will come out of it well. He is due to go anyway and this will make his book deal humongous, and he gets to stuff the nasty Tories who tried to get him booted out. Hoist by their own petards, hopefully he sticks the knife in deep.
It’s called compromise. An old fashioned concept. May whips a CU, gives enough people a reason to support the deal, which thereby passes. She then retires having passed Brexit. We move on.
The risk is that adding a CU into the already toxic brew of the fucking shit deal creates more tory recusants.
The key to resolving this however is gaining opposition support to outweigh the Tory no surrender brigade. Any option that attracts significant opposition support can afford to lose some more Tories.
Why didn’t the SNP or LibDems support the CU option?
It is highly probable (obviously) that Mrs May will cease to be PM at some point in 2019.
But is it 1.08 probable?
I don't think so - I've laid that for a chunk.
Once a PM has announced she is going, her power (such as it is now) drains away. She wont last long now. Quite possibly sorting out the long extension - which Laura K thinks she'll have to ask for next week - will be her closing chapter. Alternatively, if she decides not to, or if the EU says no, then she gets taken out as part of Parliament's closing off of no deal.
Theresa May said after GE2017 that she'd not lead the party into another election and yet here she still is. Her tenure probably depends on the Cabinet being able to agree a short-term successor, but as we know, the Cabinet is deeply split itself.
The country was split on 23rd June 2016 and stood, feet shuffling and uncomfortable, in two opposed camps. The country plunged into political chaos as Cameron fled. We needed a unifier. Someone to forge a consensus, to conciliate. Instead, we got a divisive, adversarial politician after the Conservative Party chose their figure.
She instantly focused only on the 52%, failing to reach out to the remainder, intent on finding her own, blinkered, view of what would satisfy a majority of the majority. Failing to realise that the moment she did that, she was necessarily aiming only at a minority of the country and pushing aside the others.
Her red lines were made with that in mind. Even the “No Freedom of Movement” red line – her strongest one – was a perfect example. By definition, the 48% would tolerate it in order to avoid something worse; they’d explicitly voted that way. As long as the proportion of the 52% who would insist on it was below 96% of them, she was aiming at a minority and excluding a majority. And that’s just one example.
Her rhetoric has been divisive and she’s quietly enjoyed the overblown adversarial trumpeting of the tabloids (“Enemies of the People”, “Crush the Saboteurs” and so on) – which encourages them to continue (because she looks good when they do it). She could have cracked down on them and announced the need for reconciliation and consensus. But she didn’t, because she’s not a unifier but a divider.
We’ve gone from that awkward split to a polarised chasm of anger and distaste under her watch. Maybe it would have been a real challenge to do any differently, maybe someone else couldn’t have done better.
But she took it on. She was so badly the wrong person for a challenge to which she was utterly unsuited, and then refused to let anyone else try, continuing to divide and polarise. I don’t know what the solution is from here. I’m not sure there is one now.
When Jose Mourinho was manager at Man Utd they played tepid football which led to 0-0 draws against sides they were expected to beat, the crowd booing, the players angry, and nowhere near the top 4
With the same players and a more positive approach, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer has the crowd eating out of his hand, the players smiling, and and a top 4 finish within sight
So it could have been done better
According to my wife, the Tories haven't had anyone as handsome as Mourinho since Ivan Massow. They'd need someone with the cut and dash of Massow, and the gravitas and experience of a Clarke or Heseltine.
Instead they've got May or Gove. Liddington at least offers a bit of authority and competence.
I dont like to say it, people in glass houses etc, and I don't personally think it matters, but I said to @AlastairMeeks at the time that May was too unattractive and uncool to be PM. I didn't vote for him, but David Cameron just looked and sounded like a British PM would in a Hollywood film.
Same went for Brown following Blair. Neither could get the public onside after being foisted on the party.
It’s called compromise. An old fashioned concept. May whips a CU, gives enough people a reason to support the deal, which thereby passes. She then retires having passed Brexit. We move on.
The risk is that adding a CU into the already toxic brew of the fucking shit deal creates more tory recusants.
The key to resolving this however is gaining opposition support to outweigh the Tory no surrender brigade. Any option that attracts significant opposition support can afford to lose some more Tories.
Why didn’t the SNP or LibDems support the CU option?
For SNP it did not support Freedom of Movement
Too many people with too many red lines. Although I must admit I'm still an unreconstructed Remainer.
The country was split on 23rd June 2016 and stood, feet shuffling and uncomfortable, in two opposed camps. The country plunged into political chaos as Cameron fled. We needed a unifier. Someone to forge a consensus, to conciliate. Instead, we got a divisive, adversarial politician after the Conservative Party chose their figure.
She instantly focused only on the 52%, failing to reach out to the remainder, intent on finding her own, blinkered, view of what would satisfy a majority of the majority. Failing to realise that the moment she did that, she was necessarily aiming only at a minority of the country and pushing aside the others.
Her red lines were made with that in mind. Even the “No Freedom of Movement” red line – her strongest one – was a perfect example. By definition, the 48% would tolerate it in order to avoid something worse; they’d explicitly voted that way. As long as the proportion of the 52% who would insist on it was below 96% of them, she was aiming at a minority and excluding a majority. And that’s just one example.
Her rhetoric has been divisive and she’s quietly enjoyed the overblown adversarial trumpeting of the tabloids (“Enemies of the People”, “Crush the Saboteurs” and so on) – which encourages them to continue (because she looks good when they do it). She could have cracked down on them and announced the need for reconciliation and consensus. But she didn’t, because she’s not a unifier but a divider.
We’ve gone from that awkward split to a polarised chasm of anger and distaste under her watch. Maybe it would have been a real challenge to do any differently, maybe someone else couldn’t have done better.
But she took it on. She was so badly the wrong person for a challenge to which she was utterly unsuited, and then refused to let anyone else try, continuing to divide and polarise. I don’t know what the solution is from here. I’m not sure there is one now.
Maybe Clarke could do better.
Good post. Says it all really. May put party before country and ended up with severe, potentially fatal, damage to both.
The country was split on 23rd June 2016 and stood, feet shuffling and uncomfortable, in two opposed camps. The country plunged into political chaos as Cameron fled. We needed a unifier. Someone to forge a consensus, to conciliate. Instead, we got a divisive, adversarial politician after the Conservative Party chose their figure.
She instantly focused only on the 52%, failing to reach out to the remainder, intent on finding her own, blinkered, view of what would satisfy a majority of the majority. Failing to realise that the moment she did that, she was necessarily aiming only at a minority of the country and pushing aside the others.
Her red lines were made with that in mind. Even the “No Freedom of Movement” red line – her strongest one – was a perfect example. By definition, the 48% would tolerate it in order to avoid something worse; they’d explicitly voted that way. As long as the proportion of the 52% who would insist on it was below 96% of them, she was aiming at a minority and excluding a majority. And that’s just one example.
Her rhetoric has been divisive and she’s quietly enjoyed the overblown adversarial trumpeting of the tabloids (“Enemies of the People”, “Crush the Saboteurs” and so on) – which encourages them to continue (because she looks good when they do it). She could have cracked down on them and announced the need for reconciliation and consensus. But she didn’t, because she’s not a unifier but a divider.
We’ve gone from that awkward split to a polarised chasm of anger and distaste under her watch. Maybe it would have been a real challenge to do any differently, maybe someone else couldn’t have done better.
But she took it on. She was so badly the wrong person for a challenge to which she was utterly unsuited, and then refused to let anyone else try, continuing to divide and polarise. I don’t know what the solution is from here. I’m not sure there is one now.
Maybe Clarke could do better.
Not only does Clarke not represent the 52%, I doubt his extreme Europhilia represent 5.2%.
That way WOULD lead to pitchforks and flaming brands.....
That list of 105 who voted against the SI to extend the Brexit date is more food for thought on the next Tory leader betting. Johnson and Raab are both on it, along with others like Baker and JRM. Current favourite Gove isn’t of course. Mercer voted against too.
It’s called compromise. An old fashioned concept. May whips a CU, gives enough people a reason to support the deal, which thereby passes. She then retires having passed Brexit. We move on.
The risk is that adding a CU into the already toxic brew of the fucking shit deal creates more tory recusants.
The key to resolving this however is gaining opposition support to outweigh the Tory no surrender brigade. Any option that attracts significant opposition support can afford to lose some more Tories.
Why didn’t the SNP or LibDems support the CU option?
For SNP it did not support Freedom of Movement
Too many people with too many red lines. Although I must admit I'm still an unreconstructed Remainer.
My heart wants to leave the EU but my head says we need to stay.
My head is ruled by my business credentials and on balance in a new vote I would probably with a heavy heart vote to remain
Even within the EU a lot of these FTAs don’t seem so great these days - eg. Japanese one reducing incentives for Japanese to make cars within the single market.
No, no, no. We can't have that sort of thinking. In the midst of visceral divisions over Brexit, the one thing that unites all parties is that free trade deals are the best thing since sliced bread, and the only issue is whether we can get better ones in or outside the EU. Any other thinking is heresy.
There was some speculation yesterday that the DUP might simply abstain in MV3. Their statement didn't indicate that but if they did does anyone have a feel for whether enough ERG members have now changed their position? Last time out May lost by 149. 10 abstentions brings the margin of defeat down to 139. That means 70 switchers. That seems a lot.
I think even with the DUP on board there are over 30 unreconciled Tories. Read the account of Steve Baker addressing the ERG and ask yourself how likely he is to change what we can politely call his mind. He is far from alone.
The account of Steve Baker's rant at the meeting is one of the funniest things I've read.
This man was a minister of the crown in the present government. That is terrifying.
Mark Francois was a Minister of State in the previous government.
You're not making me feel better. Imagine being a backbencher who hadn't held a position and those two had. It would be practically defamatory.
Are MPs panicking yet? 9 hours away and my distanced impression is that they all still believe they’re right, everyone else is wrong and all is required is every other MP to understand this.
Had London been prepared for Brexit on June 24, 2016, the negotiations might have played out differently.
“The British government should have offered something very, very quickly,” said one high-ranking official of a large EU country. “If the U.K. had said: ‘Here’s the plan,’ we might have accepted it.”
“The British strength was being one member state, being able to define its national interest quickly and making its move quickly,” the official said. “It did not do that.”
So it all tracks back to Cameron & Osborne.....
That article paints a painful contrast between the painstaking and coherent approach of Tusk, Junker and Selmayr compared to the gyrating improvisations of the Buccaneering Brexiteers.
When Jose Mourinho was manager at Man Utd they played tepid football which led to 0-0 draws against sides they were expected to beat, the crowd booing, the players angry, and nowhere near the top 4
With the same players and a more positive approach, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer has the crowd eating out of his hand, the players smiling, and and a top 4 finish within sight
So it could have been done better
According to my wife, the Tories haven't had anyone as handsome as Mourinho since Ivan Massow. They'd need someone with the cut and dash of Massow, and the gravitas and experience of a Clarke or Heseltine.
Instead they've got May or Gove. Liddington at least offers a bit of authority and competence.
I dont like to say it, people in glass houses etc, and I don't personally think it matters, but I said to @AlastairMeeks at the time that May was too unattractive and uncool to be PM. I didn't vote for him, but David Cameron just looked and sounded like a British PM would in a Hollywood film.
Same went for Brown following Blair. Neither could get the public onside after being foisted on the party.
On that basis
Matt Hancock is like a smiley young Blair James Cleverley has a warm friendly face Esther McVey was a TV presenter and has associated good looks
There was some speculation yesterday that the DUP might simply abstain in MV3. Their statement didn't indicate that but if they did does anyone have a feel for whether enough ERG members have now changed their position? Last time out May lost by 149. 10 abstentions brings the margin of defeat down to 139. That means 70 switchers. That seems a lot.
I think even with the DUP on board there are over 30 unreconciled Tories. Read the account of Steve Baker addressing the ERG and ask yourself how likely he is to change what we can politely call his mind. He is far from alone.
The account of Steve Baker's rant at the meeting is one of the funniest things I've read.
This man was a minister of the crown in the present government. That is terrifying.
Mark Francois was a Minister of State in the previous government.
You're not making me feel better. Imagine being a backbencher who hadn't held a position and those two had. It would be practically defamatory.
Are MPs panicking yet? 9 hours away and my distanced impression is that they all still believe their right and all is required is every other MP to understand this.
Personally I think they're right not to be panicking just now. The Letwin process (another good name for an airport novel) is being followed and yesterday's indicative votes were a lot more illuminating than I had expected. Two options command real support in Parliament - a lot more than Theresa May's deal. If those three are put through from judges' houses to the live show next Monday, we can reasonably hope matters will become a bit clearer still then.
There was some speculation yesterday that the DUP might simply abstain in MV3. Their statement didn't indicate that but if they did does anyone have a feel for whether enough ERG members have now changed their position? Last time out May lost by 149. 10 abstentions brings the margin of defeat down to 139. That means 70 switchers. That seems a lot.
I think even with the DUP on board there are over 30 unreconciled Tories. Read the account of Steve Baker addressing the ERG and ask yourself how likely he is to change what we can politely call his mind. He is far from alone.
The account of Steve Baker's rant at the meeting is one of the funniest things I've read.
This man was a minister of the crown in the present government. That is terrifying.
Mark Francois was a Minister of State in the previous government.
You're not making me feel better. Imagine being a backbencher who hadn't held a position and those two had. It would be practically defamatory.
Are MPs panicking yet? 9 hours away and my distanced impression is that they all still believe they’re right, everyone else is wrong and all is required is every other MP to understand this.
The country was split on 23rd June 2016 and stood, feet shuffling and uncomfortable, in two opposed camps. The country plunged into political chaos as Cameron fled. We needed a unifier. Someone to forge a consensus, to conciliate. Instead, we got a divisive, adversarial politician after the Conservative Party chose their figure.
She instantly focused only on the 52%, failing to reach out to the remainder, intent on finding her own, blinkered, view of what would satisfy a majority of the majority. Failing to realise that the moment she did that, she was necessarily aiming only at a minority of the country and pushing aside the others.
Her red lines were made with that in mind. Even the “No Freedom of Movement” red line – her strongest one – was a perfect example. By definition, the 48% would tolerate it in order to avoid something worse; they’d explicitly voted that way. As long as the proportion of the 52% who would insist on it was below 96% of them, she was aiming at a minority and excluding a majority. And that’s just one example.
Her rhetoric has been divisive and she’s quietly enjoyed the overblown adversarial trumpeting of the tabloids (“Enemies of the People”, “Crush the Saboteurs” and so on) – which encourages them to continue (because she looks good when they do it). She could have cracked down on them and announced the need for reconciliation and consensus. But she didn’t, because she’s not a unifier but a divider.
We’ve gone from that awkward split to a polarised chasm of anger and distaste under her watch. Maybe it would have been a real challenge to do any differently, maybe someone else couldn’t have done better.
But she took it on. She was so badly the wrong person for a challenge to which she was utterly unsuited, and then refused to let anyone else try, continuing to divide and polarise. I don’t know what the solution is from here. I’m not sure there is one now.
Maybe Clarke could do better.
Good post. Says it all really. May put party before country and ended up with severe, potentially fatal, damage to both.
I disagree with that as was linked earlier. For May Party and Country align - she is wrong in this but I don’t think she is not putting party before country.
The country was split on 23rd June 2016 and stood, feet shuffling and uncomfortable, in two opposed camps. The country plunged into political chaos as Cameron fled. We needed a unifier. Someone to forge a consensus, to conciliate. Instead, we got a divisive, adversarial politician after the Conservative Party chose their figure.
She instantly focused only on the 52%, failing to reach out to the remainder, intent on finding her own, blinkered, view of what would satisfy a majority of the majority. Failing to realise that the moment she did that, she was necessarily aiming only at a minority of the country and pushing aside the others.
Her red lines were made with that in mind. Even the “No Freedom of Movement” red line – her strongest one – was a perfect example. By definition, the 48% would tolerate it in order to avoid something worse; they’d explicitly voted that way. As long as the proportion of the 52% who would insist on it was below 96% of them, she was aiming at a minority and excluding a majority. And that’s just one example.
Her rhetoric has been divisive and she’s quietly enjoyed the overblown adversarial trumpeting of the tabloids (“Enemies of the People”, “Crush the Saboteurs” and so on) – which encourages them to continue (because she looks good when they do it). She could have cracked down on them and announced the need for reconciliation and consensus. But she didn’t, because she’s not a unifier but a divider.
We’ve gone from that awkward split to a polarised chasm of anger and distaste under her watch. Maybe it would have been a real challenge to do any differently, maybe someone else couldn’t have done better.
But she took it on. She was so badly the wrong person for a challenge to which she was utterly unsuited, and then refused to let anyone else try, continuing to divide and polarise. I don’t know what the solution is from here. I’m not sure there is one now.
Maybe Clarke could do better.
That's just a long winded way of saying you wished Remain had won. Taking bits off the 52% whilst assuming total unity of the 48% is for the birds. May's deal upset the hardline Leavers as much as the extremist Remainers. Leave actually won, so she was entitled to skew her deal far more to that side of the argument than she did, and if she had, rather than try to please everyone, it might have worked. If anything, she gave hope to all sides that by sticking to their extremist position they might hit the jackpot, and they couldn't help themselves, so here we are.
When Jose Mourinho was manager at Man Utd they played tepid football which led to 0-0 draws against sides they were expected to beat, the crowd booing, the players angry, and nowhere near the top 4
With the same players and a more positive approach, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer has the crowd eating out of his hand, the players smiling, and and a top 4 finish within sight
So it could have been done better
According to my wife, the Tories haven't had anyone as handsome as Mourinho since Ivan Massow. They'd need someone with the cut and dash of Massow, and the gravitas and experience of a Clarke or Heseltine.
Instead they've got May or Gove. Liddington at least offers a bit of authority and competence.
I dont like to say it, people in glass houses etc, and I don't personally think it matters, but I said to @AlastairMeeks at the time that May was too unattractive and uncool to be PM. I didn't vote for him, but David Cameron just looked and sounded like a British PM would in a Hollywood film.
Same went for Brown following Blair. Neither could get the public onside after being foisted on the party.
On that basis
Matt Hancock is like a smiley young Blair James Cleverley has a warm friendly face Esther McVey was a TV presenter and has associated good looks
Hancock looks like the register monitor at school that got picked on. The other two are superficially on the right track I would say.
Comments
Thanks again.
Probably in reality he was taking a view that he would support anything other than no deal, because to do so would increase the chance of one option gaining a majority.
There is no reason not to run both approaches in parallel, since they are not contradictory and are aimed at different audiences. A better Prime Minister, or even a better LotO, might do that but we are stuck with the ones we have.
https://tinyurl.com/y6zuz68r
Without the FTPA, a government could make all votes confidence votes, and we end up with very bad government.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1111181690339295232
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1111181692247646208
I think this explains succinctly why Tezza refuses to quit before Brexit is done
Basically the DUP is saying “we remain in the Union on our terms”. They are asking the other countries to pay a significant price to facilitate that
That’s fine provided that the other countries agree.
How about a NI referendum on:
(a) leave with the Deal
or
(b) reunification of Ireland & rUK leaves with the Deal sans backstop
Labour might vote for that...
It’s more time for ovaltine and book at bed time than sod it the grand wizards are back with the Spartans?
If you didn’t vote for the referendum it’s because either you don’t want one on principle or because you don’t like the uncertainty
I’m not sure tweaking one possible outcome changes that materially
Hence you lose customs union supporters who dislike a referendum
https://www.theonion.com/aging-pope-just-blessing-everything-in-sight-say-conce-1819565036
Bizarrely, it will also be a reverse VoNC, since if it passes, she will announce a leaving date.
And of course one of the few to foresee that we would end up where we are by voting against the triggering of article 50. Not because he was pro remain, but because he was against imposing a hard deadline without a plan to escape from it.
THat should be very worrying, as any policy going through will probably need the support of a good number from both parties.
Fuckwit.
However now the DUP will still vote down May's Deal it is likely to fail again which means May will stay Tory leader and PM and either ask Parliament to vote to contest the European elections and the EU for a long extension on that basis, shift to her Deal plus permanent Customs Union if that gets a majority on preferences on Monday or call a general election to get a majority for her Deal
Had they supported, of course, it would have gone trough.
“The British government should have offered something very, very quickly,” said one high-ranking official of a large EU country. “If the U.K. had said: ‘Here’s the plan,’ we might have accepted it.”
“The British strength was being one member state, being able to define its national interest quickly and making its move quickly,” the official said. “It did not do that.”
So it all tracks back to Cameron & Osborne.....
That's an EU official making the same point Gove made about us holding the cards.
As to what happens on Monday and how Theresa May will respond, your guess might well be better than mine.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/05/20/a-100-1-tip-to-be-theresa-mays-successor/
Though him becoming PM would make me grumpy.
I don’t think I’d cope very well with a PM younger than me.
But is it 1.08 probable?
I don't think so - I've laid that for a chunk.
With the same players and a more positive approach, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer has the crowd eating out of his hand, the players smiling, and and a top 4 finish within sight
So it could have been done better
1. Clarke.
2. Corbyn.
3. May - since her Deal (via the Backstop) has the CU.
I always use Colgate. I hate Palmolive.
Instead they've got May or Gove. Liddington at least offers a bit of authority and competence.
The referendum route is a much easier deal for both sides to enforce, because you can just put the necessary quid-pro-quo in binding legislation, so if anyone tries to renege, the whole deal is off.
It was very much in the vein of Tony Hancock declaiming "Did Magna Carta die in vain?"
https://twitter.com/AdamAfriyie/status/1111030274874376192?s=19
The Mail on Sunday reports that Soames told the MP for Windsor: "You are a chateau bottled nuclear powered ****. You are totally f***ing disloyal, a f***ing disgrace to your party, your fellow MPs, your prime minister and your country."
"This is nothing more than a grotesque f***ing vanity project to promote your absurd f***ing campaign to become party leader. You aren’t up to it, man!"
https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/21/adam-afriyie-nicholas-soames_n_4134750.html
The country was split on 23rd June 2016 and stood, feet shuffling and uncomfortable, in two opposed camps. The country plunged into political chaos as Cameron fled.
We needed a unifier. Someone to forge a consensus, to conciliate. Instead, we got a divisive, adversarial politician after the Conservative Party chose their figure.
She instantly focused only on the 52%, failing to reach out to the remainder, intent on finding her own, blinkered, view of what would satisfy a majority of the majority. Failing to realise that the moment she did that, she was necessarily aiming only at a minority of the country and pushing aside the others.
Her red lines were made with that in mind. Even the “No Freedom of Movement” red line – her strongest one – was a perfect example. By definition, the 48% would tolerate it in order to avoid something worse; they’d explicitly voted that way. As long as the proportion of the 52% who would insist on it was below 96% of them, she was aiming at a minority and excluding a majority. And that’s just one example.
Her rhetoric has been divisive and she’s quietly enjoyed the overblown adversarial trumpeting of the tabloids (“Enemies of the People”, “Crush the Saboteurs” and so on) – which encourages them to continue (because she looks good when they do it). She could have cracked down on them and announced the need for reconciliation and consensus. But she didn’t, because she’s not a unifier but a divider.
We’ve gone from that awkward split to a polarised chasm of anger and distaste under her watch. Maybe it would have been a real challenge to do any differently, maybe someone else couldn’t have done better.
But she took it on. She was so badly the wrong person for a challenge to which she was utterly unsuited, and then refused to let anyone else try, continuing to divide and polarise. I don’t know what the solution is from here. I’m not sure there is one now.
Maybe Clarke could do better.
Same went for Brown following Blair. Neither could get the public onside after being foisted on the party.
https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1111194659890569217
Is he enjoying life too much to go back to all this crap?
That way WOULD lead to pitchforks and flaming brands.....
My head is ruled by my business credentials and on balance in a new vote I would probably with a heavy heart vote to remain
https://twitter.com/Anna_Soubry/status/1110935349868535809
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1111192745329065984
Matt Hancock is like a smiley young Blair
James Cleverley has a warm friendly face
Esther McVey was a TV presenter and has associated good looks