May saying she’s going to leave soon essentially means Labour voting for the deal are voting to bring in a hardline Brexiter .
Which should be great for Labour as the party will not put up with it and there will be defections and current MPs leaving the party to stand independently, which will usher in a socialist paradise. This argument stands up to no scrutiny.
It's a load of old wank is what it is. The parliamentary numbers wont magically alter. Nandy is going right down in my estimation.
Hopefully also in the estimation of her voters....
The 75 Labour MPs from the most Leave supporting seats. Can she get an extra 40 votes from these? Probably not
Susan Elan Jones "Nia Griffith "Stephen Hepburn "Kevan Jones "John Mann "Kelvin Hopkins "Sue Hayman "Dame Rosie Winterton "Ronnie Campbell "John Spellar "Angela Rayner "Chris Ruane "Richard Burgon "Helen Goodman "Tony Lloyd "Christina Rees "Sir Kevin Barron "Jess Phillips "Yvonne Fovargue "Jon Cruddas "Carolyn Harris "Keith Vaz "Nick Thomas-Symonds "Phil Wilson "Jon Trickett "Chris Elmore "Naz Shah "Yvette Cooper "Jack Dromey "Alex Norris "Dennis Skinner "Valerie Vaz "Emma Lewell-Buck "Clive Betts "Sharon Hodgson "Gloria De Piero "Caroline Flint "Imran Hussain "Khalid Mahmood "Emma Hardy "Gareth Snell "Chris Evans "Alex Cunningham "Jim McMahon "Kate Hollern "Graham P Jones "Bridget Phillipson "Dan Jarvis "Yasmin Qureshi "Stephen Kinnock "Judith Cummins "Andy McDonald "John Healey "Mike Hill "Gerald Jones "Nic Dakin "Julie Cooper "Ann Clwyd "Edward Miliband "Gordon Marsden "Anna Turley "Ruth Smeeth "Liam Byrne "Chris Bryant "Stephanie Peacock "Melanie Onn "Sarah Champion "Tom Watson "Emma Reynolds "Karl Turner "Nick Smith "Grahame Morris "Pat McFadden "Ian Austin "Adrian Bailey
Ian Austin counts as ind now doesnt he?
In addition to overall loss size we should predict labour votes in favour. I'm saying less than 10, maybe 8. Abstentions dont count.
Should have said that they were voted in as Labour. Kelvin Hopkins also independent. Looking at the list there are a number of shadow ministers so I can’t see it as this is over 25% of the Labour Party.
Yes, if the policy eventually agreed for Brexit is the KENNETH CLARKE plan this does suggest that it requires a KENNETH CLARKE to pursue it.
And if we need a Ken Clarke as PM, why on earth not go for the Ken Clarke? It would be downright rude not to.
Hour of need and all that. As a lifelong non-Tory, even I could support Clarke at this point.
Me too. And what irony if the ultimate Europhile ends up as the man who saves Brexit and takes us out.
But Clarke favours revocation, that is hardly "taking us out." I know he says we would invoke again later but he must know that the chances of that actually happening are minimal.
Throwing a pound at that. Ken will not be up for shuttling back and forth to Brussels though. He will need a keen, diligent, energetic gopher. David Davis?
One point which needs to be re-emphasised, as it seems to be getting a bit lost: if the deal is not approved today, then it follows, as night follows day, that we are leaving the EU in exactly two weeks time, in chaos and without any transition, unless parliament agrees something else which the government and the EU accept. (If that something is 'Revoke' then the EU's acceptance is not required).
Given that MPs are still faffing about discussing how many of their favourite unicorns can fit on a pin-head, and the fact that two weeks is not exactly ample time, the danger is pretty obvious, isn't it?
Yes, but listening to IDS this morning it seems like if the WA does miraculously pass today we then have less than eight weeks of failing to get the ERG to vote for the legal detail of what they vote for today, and then having a choice between no deal, or revoking without Euro elections and smashing up the legal order of the EU.
So that could end up being worse.
If the ERG were sensible (from their own perspective) that should be their plan. Vote the "in principle" WA through today and then switch en masse and vote the WAIB down next month. Pretty much guarantees a no deal exit.
That may be what the brighter ones have worked out already.
That's what I'm worried about, but I'm then forced to rely on the pig-headed stupidity of Bill Cash and Mark Francois to avoid it.
Tragic the BBC are trying to big up the chances of the deal passing . Obviously have taken orders from no 10 .
That makes no sense, because on this issue at least mps have very stubbornly stuck to their guns over and over. Media rumours of x or y happening have had no effect and so the idea the BBC is trying to influence things doesn't hold up, the idea no 10 is through them doesnt hold up because it just blows up on their face when, again, they fall short.
More likely they just hope for a conclusion to the story rather than endless parliamentary pontification.
No they are actually a government propaganda mouthpiece
Yes, if the policy eventually agreed for Brexit is the KENNETH CLARKE plan this does suggest that it requires a KENNETH CLARKE to pursue it.
And if we need a Ken Clarke as PM, why on earth not go for the Ken Clarke? It would be downright rude not to.
Hour of need and all that. As a lifelong non-Tory, even I could support Clarke at this point.
Me too. And what irony if the ultimate Europhile ends up as the man who saves Brexit and takes us out.
But Clarke favours revocation, that is hardly "taking us out." I know he says we would invoke again later but he must know that the chances of that actually happening are minimal.
I think if he took us out and remained in a CU, and that was the will of parliament, he would live with that and get us a bloody good deal. The guy is a serious grown-up and has high integrity. I know it is unlikely to happen, but one can dream!
Throwing a pound at that. Ken will not be up for shuttling back and forth to Brussels though. He will need a keen, diligent, energetic gopher. David Davis?
Did you say "energetic" and David Davis in the same post ?
One point which needs to be re-emphasised, as it seems to be getting a bit lost: if the deal is not approved today, then it follows, as night follows day, that we are leaving the EU in exactly two weeks time, in chaos and without any transition, unless parliament agrees something else which the government and the EU accept. (If that something is 'Revoke' then the EU's acceptance is not required).
Given that MPs are still faffing about discussing how many of their favourite unicorns can fit on a pin-head, and the fact that two weeks is not exactly ample time, the danger is pretty obvious, isn't it?
Yes, but listening to IDS this morning it seems like if the WA does miraculously pass today we then have less than eight weeks of failing to get the ERG to vote for the legal detail of what they vote for today, and then having a choice between no deal, or revoking without Euro elections and smashing up the legal order of the EU.
So that could end up being worse.
If the ERG were sensible (from their own perspective) that should be their plan. Vote the "in principle" WA through today and then switch en masse and vote the WAIB down next month. Pretty much guarantees a no deal exit.
That may be what the brighter ones have worked out already.
That's what I'm worried about, but I'm then forced to rely on the pig-headed stupidity of Bill Cash and Mark Francois to avoid it.
Grieve as good as said that was their plan, during his speech.
Certainly, those (like Finkelstein) that think passing the WA reduces the chance of no deal are probably mistaken; quite the reverse.
Which should be great for Labour as the party will not put up with it and there will be defections and current MPs leaving the party to stand independently, which will usher in a socialist paradise. This argument stands up to no scrutiny.
Yes, Labour are well placed if the WA passes. As they are if it doesn't.
The question I have is of the following 2 GE scenarios -
(i) Pre Brexit, running on renegotiation and REF2. (ii) Post Brexit, running on CU/SM.
One point which needs to be re-emphasised, as it seems to be getting a bit lost: if the deal is not approved today, then it follows, as night follows day, that we are leaving the EU in exactly two weeks time, in chaos and without any transition, unless parliament agrees something else which the government and the EU accept. (If that something is 'Revoke' then the EU's acceptance is not required).
Given that MPs are still faffing about discussing how many of their favourite unicorns can fit on a pin-head, and the fact that two weeks is not exactly ample time, the danger is pretty obvious, isn't it?
Yes, but listening to IDS this morning it seems like if the WA does miraculously pass today we then have less than eight weeks of failing to get the ERG to vote for the legal detail of what they vote for today, and then having a choice between no deal, or revoking without Euro elections and smashing up the legal order of the EU.
So that could end up being worse.
If the ERG were sensible (from their own perspective) that should be their plan. Vote the "in principle" WA through today and then switch en masse and vote the WAIB down next month. Pretty much guarantees a no deal exit.
That may be what the brighter ones have worked out already.
That's what I'm worried about, but I'm then forced to rely on the pig-headed stupidity of Bill Cash and Mark Francois to avoid it.
Grieve as good as said that was their plan, during his speech.
Certainly, those (like Finkelstein) that think passing the WA reduces the chance of no deal are probably mistaken; quite the reverse.
Something tells me Grieve is not involved in their planning.
One point which needs to be re-emphasised, as it seems to be getting a bit lost: if the deal is not approved today, then it follows, as night follows day, that we are leaving the EU in exactly two weeks time, in chaos and without any transition, unless parliament agrees something else which the government and the EU accept. (If that something is 'Revoke' then the EU's acceptance is not required).
Given that MPs are still faffing about discussing how many of their favourite unicorns can fit on a pin-head, and the fact that two weeks is not exactly ample time, the danger is pretty obvious, isn't it?
Yes, but listening to IDS this morning it seems like if the WA does miraculously pass today we then have less than eight weeks of failing to get the ERG to vote for the legal detail of what they vote for today, and then having a choice between no deal, or revoking without Euro elections and smashing up the legal order of the EU.
So that could end up being worse.
If the ERG were sensible (from their own perspective) that should be their plan. Vote the "in principle" WA through today and then switch en masse and vote the WAIB down next month. Pretty much guarantees a no deal exit.
That may be what the brighter ones have worked out already.
That's what I'm worried about, but I'm then forced to rely on the pig-headed stupidity of Bill Cash and Mark Francois to avoid it.
All the ERG should back the WA today even if ultimately it still fails. It would have the great advantage of focusing the attention onto Remainer MPs on their side and in Labour Leave areas who could then rightly be held up us thwarting the will of the people on what should have been Brexit Day.
One point which needs to be re-emphasised, as it seems to be getting a bit lost: if the deal is not approved today, then it follows, as night follows day, that we are leaving the EU in exactly two weeks time, in chaos and without any transition, unless parliament agrees something else which the government and the EU accept. (If that something is 'Revoke' then the EU's acceptance is not required).
Given that MPs are still faffing about discussing how many of their favourite unicorns can fit on a pin-head, and the fact that two weeks is not exactly ample time, the danger is pretty obvious, isn't it?
Yes, but listening to IDS this morning it seems like if the WA does miraculously pass today we then have less than eight weeks of failing to get the ERG to vote for the legal detail of what they vote for today, and then having a choice between no deal, or revoking without Euro elections and smashing up the legal order of the EU.
So that could end up being worse.
If the ERG were sensible (from their own perspective) that should be their plan. Vote the "in principle" WA through today and then switch en masse and vote the WAIB down next month. Pretty much guarantees a no deal exit.
That may be what the brighter ones have worked out already.
That's what I'm worried about, but I'm then forced to rely on the pig-headed stupidity of Bill Cash and Mark Francois to avoid it.
All the ERG should back the WA today even if ultimately it still fails. It would have the great advantage of focusing the attention onto Remainer MPs on their side and in Labour Leave areas who could then rightly be held up us thwarting the will of the people.
That requires a level of forward thinking that your typical ERG member has never displayed.
Presumably some of our entryists can't get their heads round that.
I'm endlessly entertained by Labour members screeching on that MPs who vote with the Tories should be expelled / sacked.
Yes. Voting with the Tories. Against the Labour Whip. Just like Corbyn then...
I think the problem with some of them is rank stupidity, with the others that they read whatever manipulative guff is spun by The Canary or Shitebox and think its true.
Unsuited for politics is clearly nonsense. You dont last even on backbenches for that long without being suited for politics, and she held high office for years. She's unsuited to be PM but going that far is clearly silliness and projection.
All the ERG should back the WA today even if ultimately it still fails. It would have the great advantage of focusing the attention onto Remainer MPs on their side and in Labour Leave areas who could then rightly be held up us thwarting the will of the people on what should have been Brexit Day.
Yes, that is IMO part of the rationale for this WA only vote.
If the ERG fall in line it strengthens the narrative of Labour plus the Grievers blocking Brexit.
Which should be great for Labour as the party will not put up with it and there will be defections and current MPs leaving the party to stand independently, which will usher in a socialist paradise. This argument stands up to no scrutiny.
Yes, Labour are well placed if the WA passes. As they are if it doesn't.
The question I have is of the following 2 GE scenarios -
(i) Pre Brexit, running on renegotiation and REF2. (ii) Post Brexit, running on CU/SM.
Which are they more likely to win. I think (i).
Biggest GE factor is who is Con leader for the election.
Unsuited for politics is clearly nonsense. You dont last even on backbenches for that long without being suited for politics, and she held high office for years. She's unsuited to be PM but going that far is clearly silliness and projection.
That's a second-order type of argument which is trumped by actual first-hand observation of, to take one example out of hundreds, the 2017 GE fiasco. Yes, it is heavily against the odds that someone utterly unsuited to politics should become PM, but she has managed it.
In fairness virtually no one seems to think it will pass today even with full ERG backing (or as close as can be managed) so it won’t make that much difference when the Commons stops no deal and goes for something else.
Unsuited for politics is clearly nonsense. You dont last even on backbenches for that long without being suited for politics, and she held high office for years. She's unsuited to be PM but going that far is clearly silliness and projection.
That's a second-order type of argument which is trumped by actual first-hand observation of, to take one example out of hundreds, the 2017 GE fiasco. Yes, it is heavily against the odds that someone utterly unsuited to politics should become PM, but she has managed it.
May like brown is totally unsuited to leader / pm, but both showed ability to last as a minister, operating as technocrats.
Which should be great for Labour as the party will not put up with it and there will be defections and current MPs leaving the party to stand independently, which will usher in a socialist paradise. This argument stands up to no scrutiny.
Yes, Labour are well placed if the WA passes. As they are if it doesn't.
The question I have is of the following 2 GE scenarios -
(i) Pre Brexit, running on renegotiation and REF2. (ii) Post Brexit, running on CU/SM.
Which are they more likely to win. I think (i).
You ignore the fact most of the top Tory and Labour marginal seats voted Leave, if Labour is seen to have blocked Brexit that will hit them in the Northern and Midlands marginals even if they pile up even bigger majorities in the inner cities and university towns
Which should be great for Labour as the party will not put up with it and there will be defections and current MPs leaving the party to stand independently, which will usher in a socialist paradise. This argument stands up to no scrutiny.
Yes, Labour are well placed if the WA passes. As they are if it doesn't.
The question I have is of the following 2 GE scenarios -
(i) Pre Brexit, running on renegotiation and REF2. (ii) Post Brexit, running on CU/SM.
Which are they more likely to win. I think (i).
You ignore the fact most of the top Tory and Labour marginal seats voted Leave, if Labour is seen to have blocked Brexit that will hit them in the Northern and Midlands marginals even if they pile up even bigger majorities in the inner cities and university towns
But Clarke favours revocation, that is hardly "taking us out." I know he says we would invoke again later but he must know that the chances of that actually happening are minimal.
Revocation is his ideal world choice but if his own suggested compromise (Brexit with CU), the one that bears his name, wins through I think he will feel that it must be executed.
Which should be great for Labour as the party will not put up with it and there will be defections and current MPs leaving the party to stand independently, which will usher in a socialist paradise. This argument stands up to no scrutiny.
Yes, Labour are well placed if the WA passes. As they are if it doesn't.
The question I have is of the following 2 GE scenarios -
(i) Pre Brexit, running on renegotiation and REF2. (ii) Post Brexit, running on CU/SM.
Which are they more likely to win. I think (i).
You ignore the fact most of the top Tory and Labour marginal seats voted Leave, if Labour is seen to have blocked Brexit that will hit them in the Northern and Midlands marginals even if they pile up even bigger majorities in the inner cities and university towns
I think you'll find it is the Tories (ERG) who have blocked Brexit.
Which should be great for Labour as the party will not put up with it and there will be defections and current MPs leaving the party to stand independently, which will usher in a socialist paradise. This argument stands up to no scrutiny.
Yes, Labour are well placed if the WA passes. As they are if it doesn't.
The question I have is of the following 2 GE scenarios -
(i) Pre Brexit, running on renegotiation and REF2. (ii) Post Brexit, running on CU/SM.
Which are they more likely to win. I think (i).
You ignore the fact most of the top Tory and Labour marginal seats voted Leave, if Labour is seen to have blocked Brexit that will hit them in the Northern and Midlands marginals even if they pile up even bigger majorities in the inner cities and university towns
Unsuited for politics is clearly nonsense. You dont last even on backbenches for that long without being suited for politics, and she held high office for years. She's unsuited to be PM but going that far is clearly silliness and projection.
That's a second-order type of argument which is trumped by actual first-hand observation of, to take one example out of hundreds, the 2017 GE fiasco. Yes, it is heavily against the odds that someone utterly unsuited to politics should become PM, but she has managed it.
May like brown is totally unsuited to leader / pm, but both showed ability to last as a minister, operating as technocrats.
Exactly. The top job is not easy, few are great, most are crappy, some are very bad, but none means someone is unsuited to politics, even senior politics. There is a wealth of evidence that she is suited to it given her career. Observation of her time as leader and PM doesn’t erase decades of political life, much of it successful or at least competent enough as these things go.
With only 90 mins to go, it clearly isn't close as if it was the journos on twitter would be telling us all about may meeting individual hold-outs, whips doing X / Y / Z as a last push to get it over the line etc
TIG to apply to be listed as a political party so they should be a permanent feature of polls soon
Tried to oust a Democratically elected leader of Labour
Trying to overturn a democratic referendum
Refuse to call by elections to ratify their switch of party
What a refreshing change! The Anti Democratic League for the bored middle class
What’s the problem in trying to oust a democratically elected leader? If a leader were awful should people have to sit and wait for them to quit of their own accord?
Which should be great for Labour as the party will not put up with it and there will be defections and current MPs leaving the party to stand independently, which will usher in a socialist paradise. This argument stands up to no scrutiny.
Yes, Labour are well placed if the WA passes. As they are if it doesn't.
The question I have is of the following 2 GE scenarios -
(i) Pre Brexit, running on renegotiation and REF2. (ii) Post Brexit, running on CU/SM.
Which are they more likely to win. I think (i).
You ignore the fact most of the top Tory and Labour marginal seats voted Leave, if Labour is seen to have blocked Brexit that will hit them in the Northern and Midlands marginals even if they pile up even bigger majorities in the inner cities and university towns
Unlike you to ignore more recent polling, HY?
No, he's correct I think.
It depends how many votes turn on Brexit.
If polling is correct that support/opposition to Brexit is now 47/53, places like Peterborough will still be against EU membership.
With only 90 mins to go, it clearly isn't close as if it was the journos on twitter would be telling us all about may meeting individual hold-outs, whips doing X / Y / Z as a last push to get it over the line etc
With only 90 mins to go, it clearly isn't close as if it was the journos on twitter would be telling us all about may meeting individual hold-outs, whips doing X / Y / Z as a last push to get it over the line etc
The government is going to lose by about 30-40 votes IMO.
Unsuited for politics is clearly nonsense. You dont last even on backbenches for that long without being suited for politics, and she held high office for years. She's unsuited to be PM but going that far is clearly silliness and projection.
That's a second-order type of argument which is trumped by actual first-hand observation of, to take one example out of hundreds, the 2017 GE fiasco. Yes, it is heavily against the odds that someone utterly unsuited to politics should become PM, but she has managed it.
May like brown is totally unsuited to leader / pm, but both showed ability to last as a minister, operating as technocrats.
Exactly. The top job is not easy, few are great, most are crappy, some are very bad, but none means someone is unsuited to politics, even senior politics. There is a wealth of evidence that she is suited to it given her career. Observation of her time as leader and PM doesn’t erase decades of political life, much of it successful or at least competent enough as these things go.
KLE, you sure you are not her other half, or are you just having a laugh
I've been cutting the grass for the last few minutes, it's more interesting. It's the first cut of the season and it seems very long and lush. Only a tiny back garden, but situated where the warm gulf stream caresses the tropical NW coast of England, it grows quickly.
I planted a peach tree about ten years ago in the hope of global warming and I've had a consistent crop of leaves ever since. Those pesky frosts in April foiled that hope. I blame the bloody MPs.
I've been cutting the grass for the last few minutes, it's more interesting. It's the first cut of the season and it seems very long and lush. Only a tiny back garden, but situated where the warm gulf stream caresses the tropical NW coast of England, it grows quickly.
I planted a peach tree about ten years ago in the hope of global warming and I've had a consistent crop of leaves ever since. Those pesky frosts in April foiled that hope. I blame the bloody MPs.
Unsuited for politics is clearly nonsense. You dont last even on backbenches for that long without being suited for politics, and she held high office for years. She's unsuited to be PM but going that far is clearly silliness and projection.
That's a second-order type of argument which is trumped by actual first-hand observation of, to take one example out of hundreds, the 2017 GE fiasco. Yes, it is heavily against the odds that someone utterly unsuited to politics should become PM, but she has managed it.
May like brown is totally unsuited to leader / pm, but both showed ability to last as a minister, operating as technocrats.
Exactly. The top job is not easy, few are great, most are crappy, some are very bad, but none means someone is unsuited to politics, even senior politics. There is a wealth of evidence that she is suited to it given her career. Observation of her time as leader and PM doesn’t erase decades of political life, much of it successful or at least competent enough as these things go.
Timing has a lot to do with it as well. Imagine if the Blair/Brown and Cameron/May terms had been reversed. May and Brown might have been seen as good PMs.
13:10 Chope: 'Why hold your nose and vote for it?'
House of Commons
Parliament BBCCopyright: BBC
Sir Christopher Chope condemns those who have changed their minds to back Theresa May's withdrawal agreement.
He tells the Commons: "Why would you want to hold your nose and vote for something that was so against your instincts and against the interests of the British people?"
Former Tory and member of the Independent Group Anna Soubry praises him for "being consistent".
Unsuited for politics is clearly nonsense. You dont last even on backbenches for that long without being suited for politics, and she held high office for years. She's unsuited to be PM but going that far is clearly silliness and projection.
That's a second-order type of argument which is trumped by actual first-hand observation of, to take one example out of hundreds, the 2017 GE fiasco. Yes, it is heavily against the odds that someone utterly unsuited to politics should become PM, but she has managed it.
May like brown is totally unsuited to leader / pm, but both showed ability to last as a minister, operating as technocrats.
Exactly. The top job is not easy, few are great, most are crappy, some are very bad, but none means someone is unsuited to politics, even senior politics. There is a wealth of evidence that she is suited to it given her career. Observation of her time as leader and PM doesn’t erase decades of political life, much of it successful or at least competent enough as these things go.
KLE, you sure you are not her other half, or are you just having a laugh
I’m not saying she is good at all, but she at least knows how to operate in politics well enough to rise through the ranks and then survive in a difficult ministry for a long time. She has long since exhausted sympathy she might deserve for the difficulty of the job before her, she has made things so much worse through indecision and poor decisions respectively, but it is simply absurd to suggest someone lasts this long in politics while being unsuited for it. Even a total incompetent could be suited to politics and so last a long time, indeed there’s plenty who fit that description. She’s a bad PM, no question, but unsuited to politics? I don’t think the evidence of her career supports that.
You ignore the fact most of the top Tory and Labour marginal seats voted Leave, if Labour is seen to have blocked Brexit that will hit them in the Northern and Midlands marginals even if they pile up even bigger majorities in the inner cities and university towns
I'm not ignoring that. It is a clear risk.
On the other hand, offering REF2 makes them the party likely to stop Brexit. It says to Remainers, you want to stop this disaster? OK you must swallow JC as PM. It might work. My sense is that it would.
But a post Brexit GE, running just on closer alignment than the Tories? No, I fear that the Tories win that one quite easily.
Which should be great for Labour as the party will not put up with it and there will be defections and current MPs leaving the party to stand independently, which will usher in a socialist paradise. This argument stands up to no scrutiny.
Yes, Labour are well placed if the WA passes. As they are if it doesn't.
The question I have is of the following 2 GE scenarios -
(i) Pre Brexit, running on renegotiation and REF2. (ii) Post Brexit, running on CU/SM.
Which are they more likely to win. I think (i).
You ignore the fact most of the top Tory and Labour marginal seats voted Leave, if Labour is seen to have blocked Brexit that will hit them in the Northern and Midlands marginals even if they pile up even bigger majorities in the inner cities and university towns
I think you'll find it is the Tories (ERG) who have blocked Brexit.
No the vast majority of Tory MPs will vote for the WA and Brexit today, most Tory MPs voted agsinst extension too or to keep No Deal on the table, it is most Labour MPs who will vote against the WA and for extension and against No Deal and thus against Brexit
13:10 Chope: 'Why hold your nose and vote for it?'
House of Commons
Parliament BBCCopyright: BBC
Sir Christopher Chope condemns those who have changed their minds to back Theresa May's withdrawal agreement.
He tells the Commons: "Why would you want to hold your nose and vote for something that was so against your instincts and against the interests of the British people?"
Former Tory and member of the Independent Group Anna Soubry praises him for "being consistent".
Comments
And if they did a bunch of Tory remainers and lab rebels would claim DUP backing means they cannot support or some such crap, bar Hoey I guess.
Buzzfeed is here: https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/70-tory-mps-may-deal-opposed
There is only one potential switcher (Anne Main) not listed (plus Ross Douglas who was absent)
It’s far from impossible they’re driving hard for that. After all, they keep on talking.
Does he ever do a funny cartoon?
He’s like the anti-Matt.
Presumably some of our entryists can't get their heads round that.
Plus Snell, Fitzpatrick...?
Certainly, those (like Finkelstein) that think passing the WA reduces the chance of no deal are probably mistaken; quite the reverse.
The question I have is of the following 2 GE scenarios -
(i) Pre Brexit, running on renegotiation and REF2.
(ii) Post Brexit, running on CU/SM.
Which are they more likely to win. I think (i).
Fallon doesn’t like he was sacked by Mrs May.
Shapps has issues with Nick Timothy and other Mrs May staffer which saw Shapps block them from standing in 2015.
Lady Hermon, Ivan Lewis, and John Woodcock would probably vote against a VONC, so 316 is the number to beat.
All the ERG should back the WA today even if ultimately it still fails. It would have the great advantage of focusing the attention onto Remainer MPs on their side and in Labour Leave areas who could then rightly be held up us thwarting the will of the people on what should have been Brexit Day.
Britain’s prime minister was never suited for politics. Now the country is dealing with the consequences.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/opinion/theresa-may.html
They can’t afford no deal so will push for a softer Brexit and long extension .
https://youtu.be/wxpYW_w5pgo
Yes. Voting with the Tories. Against the Labour Whip. Just like Corbyn then...
I think the problem with some of them is rank stupidity, with the others that they read whatever manipulative guff is spun by The Canary or Shitebox and think its true.
https://youtu.be/Gq_gORJNn58
If the ERG fall in line it strengthens the narrative of Labour plus the Grievers blocking Brexit.
Trying to overturn a democratic referendum
Refuse to call by elections to ratify their switch of party
What a refreshing change! The Anti Democratic League for the bored middle class
I’m not as confident of losing by 90 now, but 50-70 still looks good.
If polling is correct that support/opposition to Brexit is now 47/53, places like Peterborough will still be against EU membership.
I planted a peach tree about ten years ago in the hope of global warming and I've had a consistent crop of leaves ever since. Those pesky frosts in April foiled that hope. I blame the bloody MPs.
Chope: 'Why hold your nose and vote for it?'
House of Commons
Parliament
BBCCopyright: BBC
Sir Christopher Chope condemns those who have changed their minds to back Theresa May's withdrawal agreement.
He tells the Commons: "Why would you want to hold your nose and vote for something that was so against your instincts and against the interests of the British people?"
Former Tory and member of the Independent Group Anna Soubry praises him for "being consistent".
*puke emoji* *puke emoji* *puke emoji* *puke emoji*
Soubry and Chope together agreeing would imply the other side is right.
On the other hand, offering REF2 makes them the party likely to stop Brexit. It says to Remainers, you want to stop this disaster? OK you must swallow JC as PM. It might work. My sense is that it would.
But a post Brexit GE, running just on closer alignment than the Tories? No, I fear that the Tories win that one quite easily.