This has generated quite the thread on Twitter, though I am not sure that anything has actually happened that is out of the ordinary. At least not yet.
That 10% threshold looks way too low given the size of many associations. These aren't Labour constituency parties, 10% is not a high number to reach!
That's right. Though I imagine that association is above average size, and that therefore the 11 people signing the letter still have to recruit some more malcontents.
So a cabinet minister supporting a deal to leave the EU and not wanting a no deal which could harm his constituents is now being classed as betraying the country.
The Tory Party Membership is being taken over by lunatics and it’s becoming a witch hunt.
Unless you’re a no deal nutjob your public enemy number one .
Surprisingly Deltapoll has Tory voters backing Deal plus Customs Union by 40% to 27% which is actually more than the percentage of Labour voters who back it which is 35% to 31% opposed.
In fact the poll has permanent Customs Union the only Brexit option other than No Deal Brexit more Tory voters support than oppose
I'm not convinced polling on various options is of more than middling use and as a general indicator of strength of feeling. I'm a political obsessive and even I struggle to remember all the fine detail of various options.
I think if the Tory MPs were finely balanced then a poll showing certain options were broadly acceptable to their supporters even if blatantly against obvious referendum concerns, would have an impact.
But in a world where so many Tory MPs are no deal backers? I don't think things are finely balanced enough.
Maybe not but it could be enough to get a Commons majority, Deal plus Customs Union is the only think more Tory and Labour voters support than oppose.
Except, aren't Labour now saying anything they agree must be put to a referendum(to enable remain)? Presumably that might hit support for a CU a bit.
From my point of view it came the closest to winning last time, albeit with abstentions, and at this point the least unpopular option would be acceptable. I'd hope that would not be a GE, but I'm pessimistic about that - CU is one of those options that seems like it would definitely lead to one.
Maybe but on those figures Deal plus Customs Union would win a referendum too.
The fact is it is also very close to May's Deal and Corbyn's Brexit policy if they shut up about party politics for once they could both agree it as a compromise and take a plurality of their voters with them, GE or no GE
So a cabinet minister supporting a deal to leave the EU and not wanting a no deal which could harm his constituents is now being classed as betraying the country.
The Tory Party Membership is being taken over by lunatics and it’s becoming a witch hunt.
Unless you’re a no deal nutjob your public enemy number one .
Blue Momentum is clearly on the march.
Two main parties will be extreme loony camps by the end of all this.
Noting that countries that have been without governments in recent years – Belgium and Spain come to mind – have managed ok, and since our parliament and government is the problem here, how about they dissolve or suspend themselves for the duration?
Have the TIG/Change mob changed their name yet, or are they digging in for a fight with a petition site?
I don't believe the paperwork has been fully processed yet.
I don't see the issue myself. There is not a major politicla party with that name, why shouldn't a party be able to use a generic name like 'Change' just because a petition website uses it?
Noting that countries that have been without governments in recent years – Belgium and Spain come to mind – have managed ok, and since our parliament and government is the problem here, how about they dissolve or suspend themselves for the duration?
Noting that countries that have been without governments in recent years – Belgium and Spain come to mind – have managed ok, and since our parliament and government is the problem here, how about they dissolve or suspend themselves for the duration?
I'd be quite happy for Parliament to shut down for three months without pay and expenses for a Con leadership election followed by an immediate general election/
On his case for MPs being allowed to vote remotely in certain circumstances, I agree. In the 21st.C, why not?
Depends on the circumstances and how exceptional it should be. Is it really unreasonable for MPs to be expected to be present? While we know they barely listen to one another they are supposed to be at least willign to take part in debate with one another and you need to be present for that to be done properly. What reasonable accomodation can be made for those for whom the nature of the House is a big issue?
For me it is one of those issues where it is far too simplistic to pull the old 'It's the 21st century, so why can't we do x?' sort of argument, as though it is purely a technological or procedural issue preventing something that is obviously an improvement, when I am not sure it is such an obvious move. What actual benefit except for a very few individuals would such a move bring, and are there intended consequences to doing so.
People talk the same way about electronic voting generally, and there remain plenty of issues with that as well it often seeming like a solution looking for a problem.
It's also why the idea of speeding up voting in the House is a bit of a non starter for me. I'm not opposed in principle, even though the design of the building is literally for the voting to be done the way it is, but given how many votes there are taking 10-15 minutes for them is really not a problem, so the actual gain is not as transformative as proponents suggest.
The combination of the last two paragraphs would easy to implement and certainly be an improvement. The Aye and Noe divisions remain the same, but MPs have an oyster-card like swipe through system to vote, which immediately registers who has voted what.
It would be quicker for MPs to vote, and producing the results would be very quick.
According to the Guardian May wants to delay a Leadership election until October! How likely are Tory MPs to agree to that?
Sometimes I think her problem is she doesn't look more than 5 minutes ahead and so is totally unprepared to do more than scrabble from day to day, and then she seems to have preparations for things far far down the line which are, to put it mildly, incredibly implausible.
I can see MPs letting her remain PM until the Tory conference in October if, somehow, her deal or something not far off it passes - stay as party leader until all the legislation is sorted out toward the end of May and into June, expect a couple of months for a membership contest would take into August, at which point might as well let her stay until July before sparking a contest where the winner is announced at Conference.
But getting through the week, once again, seems a challenge. You have 170 no deal fanatics opposed to her compromising even if the Commons agree on one.
On his case for MPs being allowed to vote remotely in certain circumstances, I agree. In the 21st.C, why not?
Depends on the circumstances and how exceptional it should be. Is it really unreasonable for MPs to be expected to be present? While we know they barely listen to one another they are supposed to be at least willign to take part in debate with one another and you need to be present for that to be done properly. What reasonable accomodation can be made for those for whom the nature of the House is a big issue?
For me it is one of those issues where it is far too simplistic to pull the old 'It's the 21st century, so why can't we do x?' sort of argument, as though it is purely a technological or procedural issue preventing something that is obviously an improvement, when I am not sure it is such an obvious move. What actual benefit except for a very few individuals would such a move bring, and are there intended consequences to doing so.
People talk the same way about electronic voting generally, and there remain plenty of issues with that as well it often seeming like a solution looking for a problem.
It's also why the idea of speeding up voting in the House is a bit of a non starter for me. I'm not opposed in principle, even though the design of the building is literally for the voting to be done the way it is, but given how many votes there are taking 10-15 minutes for them is really not a problem, so the actual gain is not as transformative as proponents suggest.
The combination of the last two paragraphs would easy to implement and certainly be an improvement. The Aye and Noe divisions remain the same, but MPs have an oyster-card like swipe through system to vote, which immediately registers who has voted what.
It would be quicker for MPs to vote, and producing the results would be very quick.
So long as the cards are correct it should prevent errors too. My main point was that it isn't that big a difference for MP votes (the problems for electronic voting for the public are trickier anyway) because it doesn't matter if it takes 15 minutes or 5 minutes or 1 minute, they only have so many votes, so even if it is done, it isn't that big a deal even if people like Caroline Lucas seem to think it is.
She was really nervous when it came to her turn to speak. I guess that mass meetings are something that modern politicians don't get to do very often, and it doesn't come naturally to all of them.
She was really nervous when it came to her turn to speak. I guess that mass meetings are something that modern politicians don't get to do very often, and it doesn't come naturally to all of them.
Oh. I thought she was embarrassed by Lammy's nonsense! Maybe it was pre-speech nerves
Noting that countries that have been without governments in recent years – Belgium and Spain come to mind – have managed ok, and since our parliament and government is the problem here, how about they dissolve or suspend themselves for the duration?
The problem is with the words "without a government" which is a lie. The old government remains functioning the way it always had done. If the primeminister is voted out he still remains prime minister until the new govenment is formed. If the new government is a coalition this can take a long time. What cannot be done is to intorduce new laws, but paying policement and issuing tourist visas goes on as usual.
This was a big mistake that Nick Clegg made in 2010, he rushed through a coalition agreement in just a few days, because Cameron and the press were claiming the country would collapse if a new government wasn't formed straight away.
Noting that countries that have been without governments in recent years – Belgium and Spain come to mind – have managed ok, and since our parliament and government is the problem here, how about they dissolve or suspend themselves for the duration?
The problem is with the words "without a government" which is a lie. The old government remains functioning the way it always had done. If the primeminister is voted out he still remains prime minister until the new govenment is formed. If the new government is a coalition this can take a long time. What cannot be done is to intorduce new laws, but paying policement and issuing tourist visas goes on as usual.
This was a big mistake that Nick Clegg made in 2010, he rushed through a coalition agreement in just a few days, because Cameron and the press were claiming the country would collapse if a new government wasn't formed straight away.
And there was all that nonsense about Brown clinging on, even though waiting to see who would form an agreement to command a majority made not standing down reasonable.
Noting that countries that have been without governments in recent years – Belgium and Spain come to mind – have managed ok, and since our parliament and government is the problem here, how about they dissolve or suspend themselves for the duration?
The problem is with the words "without a government" which is a lie. The old government remains functioning the way it always had done. If the primeminister is voted out he still remains prime minister until the new govenment is formed. If the new government is a coalition this can take a long time. What cannot be done is to intorduce new laws, but paying policement and issuing tourist visas goes on as usual.
This was a big mistake that Nick Clegg made in 2010, he rushed through a coalition agreement in just a few days, because Cameron and the press were claiming the country would collapse if a new government wasn't formed straight away.
And there was all that nonsense about Brown clinging on, even though waiting to see who would form an agreement to command a majority made not standing down reasonable.
I thought she might get a couple of big foam New European hands and start shouting "Lets Bomb Russia!" "Lets kick Jeremy Corbyns stick away!!"
Gauke might need a UNICORN to get out of this one!
Never thought much of Gauke since was Osborne’s Chief Sec to the Treasury and ordinarily wouldn’t be sorry to see him sacked because he is as hopeless as Grayling but in fairness to him he has been very loyal to May.
As a Leaver, I still prefer broad church political parties to narrow single issue ones.
According to the Guardian May wants to delay a Leadership election until October! How likely are Tory MPs to agree to that?
Having survived the 1922 vote, she goes only by her own choice or Parliamentary vonc.
Unless the Ruling Board decide to change the rules on challenges. It is not clear from the makeup of the board whether or not there would be a majority to do that.
Gauke might need a UNICORN to get out of this one!
Never thought much of Gauke since was Osborne’s Chief Sec to the Treasury and ordinarily wouldn’t be sorry to see him sacked because he is as hopeless as Grayling but in fairness to him he has been very loyal to May.
As a Leaver, I still prefer broad church political parties to narrow single issue ones.
According to the Guardian May wants to delay a Leadership election until October! How likely are Tory MPs to agree to that?
Having survived the 1922 vote, she goes only by her own choice or Parliamentary vonc.
Unless the Ruling Board decide to change the rules on challenges. It is not clear from the makeup of the board whether or not there would be a majority to do that.
Gauke might need a UNICORN to get out of this one!
Never thought much of Gauke since was Osborne’s Chief Sec to the Treasury and ordinarily wouldn’t be sorry to see him sacked because he is as hopeless as Grayling but in fairness to him he has been very loyal to May.
As a Leaver, I still prefer broad church political parties to narrow single issue ones.
Tory party eating itself.
We’ll see. Hasn’t happened yet and whilst Gauke gave an idiotic interview earlier today, this is a gross overreaction.
This stupid Labour policy has been designed to avoid discussing the elephant in the room which is freedom of movement .
It’s much better to stay in the single market and out of the CU . That way you have your own trade policy which at least assuages Leavers . Just call it Norway with restrictions on freedom of movement and this would get big support in the country . The restrictions are in the EEA Treaty , the UK could also add a migration impact fund , registration system etc .
Given non EU immigration is rocketing and EU falling rapidly why on earth must this May red line be allowed to trash a good compromise .
The CU in conjunction with regulatory alignment gets rid of border checks, which is the sticking point in Ireland and also affects Channel ports and anyone relying on just in time frictionless trade. Being in the customs union also helps facilitate third country trade, compared what not being in it. These are concrete big wins when up against a symbolic "independent trade policy". Trade is totally uninterested in symbols.
The big loss being that unless it is 'The' Customs Union which until now has not been on offer, any other sort of Customs Union is an absolute disaster - worse than being outside a CU entirely - because it allows asymmetric free trade against us. There are no big wins in that instance.
A is not a real option. At this point no deal or one of the other options is the way to not have the backstop.
E and F both worry me in their wording. E is a 'confirmatory' vote, the obvious meaning of which would mean we do not automatically remain if it is not confirmed, but what then? So I assume the intention would be it is not really confirmatory at all, and that remain would be on it. F is about a vote to prevent no deal, but does that mean it would be explicitly revoke vs no deal?
And lookign at the link briefly i think G is actually revoke? Although they term if 'parliamentary supremacy'.
Liverpool as determined as the Tories and Ferrari to win it would seem, once again.
According to the Guardian May wants to delay a Leadership election until October! How likely are Tory MPs to agree to that?
Having survived the 1922 vote, she goes only by her own choice or Parliamentary vonc.
Unless the Ruling Board decide to change the rules on challenges. It is not clear from the makeup of the board whether or not there would be a majority to do that.
If they changed the rules to say that any VONC challenge within 12 moths of the last one required letters from 30% of Conservative MPs, who could object?
According to the Guardian May wants to delay a Leadership election until October! How likely are Tory MPs to agree to that?
Having survived the 1922 vote, she goes only by her own choice or Parliamentary vonc.
Unless the Ruling Board decide to change the rules on challenges. It is not clear from the makeup of the board whether or not there would be a majority to do that.
Surely it would be undemocratic to vote again?
I am not sure there is anything democratic about the way the Tory party run their votes.
Pete Bonnington, Hamilton's race engineer says: "Get in there Lewis - that was a hell of a race and an awesome drive."
Hamilton: "Guys, that was extremely unfortunate for Charles. He drove such a great race! We've got work to do to try and keep these guys on our tails."
We had 8 options voted on the other day. Wasn't that supposed to have greatly narrowed the field?
This is the Legislature taking the piss.....on the road to No Deal.
Well, perhaps the Speaker won't select the ones which were particularly heavily defeated last time.
Perhaps the government will actually have to allow a free vote for all its MPs this time including the Cabinet - they aren't fooling anyone that they are united, it's time to see what the total votes for and against are.
So far when no one abstains May's deal is most popular, but not the least unpopular. Hopefully if everyone actually votes we'll see if the other options with a lot of support are, in fact, more unpopular.
According to the Guardian May wants to delay a Leadership election until October! How likely are Tory MPs to agree to that?
Having survived the 1922 vote, she goes only by her own choice or Parliamentary vonc.
Unless the Ruling Board decide to change the rules on challenges. It is not clear from the makeup of the board whether or not there would be a majority to do that.
If they changed the rules to say that any VONC challenge within 12 moths of the last one required letters from 30% of Conservative MPs, who could object?
Well, yes, of course the PM....
If May had the decency to go and there was a genuine leadership contest, members would have something worthwhile to think about.
According to the Guardian May wants to delay a Leadership election until October! How likely are Tory MPs to agree to that?
Having survived the 1922 vote, she goes only by her own choice or Parliamentary vonc.
Unless the Ruling Board decide to change the rules on challenges. It is not clear from the makeup of the board whether or not there would be a majority to do that.
If they changed the rules to say that any VONC challenge within 12 moths of the last one required letters from 30% of Conservative MPs, who could object?
Well, yes, of course the PM....
If May had the decency to go and there was a genuine leadership contest, members would have something worthwhile to think about.
Instead, she is making a Mali of it.....
(which makes less sense now you have edited Togo!)
According to the Guardian May wants to delay a Leadership election until October! How likely are Tory MPs to agree to that?
Having survived the 1922 vote, she goes only by her own choice or Parliamentary vonc.
Unless the Ruling Board decide to change the rules on challenges. It is not clear from the makeup of the board whether or not there would be a majority to do that.
If they changed the rules to say that any VONC challenge within 12 moths of the last one required letters from 30% of Conservative MPs, who could object?
Well, yes, of course the PM....
If May had the decency to go and there was a genuine leadership contest, members would have something worthwhile to think about.
Instead, she is making a Mali of it.....
(which makes less sense now you have edited Togo!)
I thought they voted for all of these last week and nothing passed?
Yes. The plan is to do it again and Wednesday. Not sure when, if ever, it becomes an eliminator round!
Don’t see Bercow trying to stop it continuing as he with May’s deal.
The motion to allow the indicative votes explicitly allows them to vote on the rejected options again. Presumably they could have included May's deal in the indicative vote options.
I thought they voted for all of these last week and nothing passed?
Yes. The plan is to do it again and Wednesday. Not sure when, if ever, it becomes an eliminator round!
Don’t see Bercow trying to stop it continuing as he with May’s deal.
The motion to allow the indicative votes explicitly allows them to vote on the rejected options again. Presumably they could have included May's deal in the indicative vote options.
We could still be going round and round in circles with these "indicative votes" at Christmas!
Last week Labour NEC's organizational sub-committee made the following recommendations for selections currently held by defectors to TIG
Nottingham East: All Women Shortlist Luton South: AWS Streatham: AWS Liverpool Wavertree: AWS Pentistone and Stocksbridge. AWS Stockport: Open Ilford South: Open
The problem is the indicative votes process - which I support - needs to reach a result reasonably quickly to be credible. Dragging the process out is exactly the faint lifeline May needs to keep hanging on by her fingertips. The HoC coalescing around something quickly is important, not least because of the time pressures.
Also some of these options are a bit...weird. I hope they make more sense on the order paper than in a tweet.
The problem is the indicative votes process - which I support - needs to reach a result reasonably quickly to be credible. Dragging the process out is exactly the faint lifeline May needs to keep hanging on by her fingertips. The HoC coalescing around something quickly is important, not least because of the time pressures.
Also some of these options are a bit...weird. I hope they make more sense on the order paper than in a tweet.
I'm irritated it is not even the plan to definitively settle it tomorrow. Given they had a first go last week, why couldn't they say that no matter what tomorrow they whittle them down to the final option? It adds to the question of what last week was even about.
I really don't see why Bercow would call some of them again though, if they receive so few votes last time
I expect Bercow to cut the choices down to a max of 6 . Can’t see him picking no deal again and the backstop one either as that’s got no chance of being negotiated .
According to the Guardian May wants to delay a Leadership election until October! How likely are Tory MPs to agree to that?
Having survived the 1922 vote, she goes only by her own choice or Parliamentary vonc.
Unless the Ruling Board decide to change the rules on challenges. It is not clear from the makeup of the board whether or not there would be a majority to do that.
If they changed the rules to say that any VONC challenge within 12 moths of the last one required letters from 30% of Conservative MPs, who could object?
Well, yes, of course the PM....
If May had the decency to go and there was a genuine leadership contest, members would have something worthwhile to think about.
Instead, she is making a Mali of it.....
(which makes less sense now you have edited Togo!)
The problem is the indicative votes process - which I support - needs to reach a result reasonably quickly to be credible. Dragging the process out is exactly the faint lifeline May needs to keep hanging on by her fingertips. The HoC coalescing around something quickly is important, not least because of the time pressures.
Also some of these options are a bit...weird. I hope they make more sense on the order paper than in a tweet.
I'm irritated it is not even the plan to definitively settle it tomorrow. Given they had a first go last week, why couldn't they say that no matter what tomorrow they whittle them down to the final option? It adds to the question of what last week was even about.
I really don't see why Bercow would call some of them again though, if they receive so few votes last time
Leicester were the best team of the year, and we have trophy to prove it
Comments
The Tory Party Membership is being taken over by lunatics and it’s becoming a witch hunt.
Unless you’re a no deal nutjob your public enemy number one .
Can’t wait for work tomorrow.
The fact is it is also very close to May's Deal and Corbyn's Brexit policy if they shut up about party politics for once they could both agree it as a compromise and take a plurality of their voters with them, GE or no GE
https://twitter.com/MhairiMcF/status/1112389540533227520
Two main parties will be extreme loony camps by the end of all this.
I don't see the issue myself. There is not a major politicla party with that name, why shouldn't a party be able to use a generic name like 'Change' just because a petition website uses it?
On form Chuka and gang will refuse, they seem very resistant to any change
We could all do with a break from MPs...
The Aye and Noe divisions remain the same, but MPs have an oyster-card like swipe through system to vote, which immediately registers who has voted what.
It would be quicker for MPs to vote, and producing the results would be very quick.
https://twitter.com/jamesobonkers/status/1112390682994532353?s=21
I can see MPs letting her remain PM until the Tory conference in October if, somehow, her deal or something not far off it passes - stay as party leader until all the legislation is sorted out toward the end of May and into June, expect a couple of months for a membership contest would take into August, at which point might as well let her stay until July before sparking a contest where the winner is announced at Conference.
But getting through the week, once again, seems a challenge. You have 170 no deal fanatics opposed to her compromising even if the Commons agree on one.
This was a big mistake that Nick Clegg made in 2010, he rushed through a coalition agreement in just a few days, because Cameron and the press were claiming the country would collapse if a new government wasn't formed straight away.
She only goes if she wants to.
Never thought much of Gauke since was Osborne’s Chief Sec to the Treasury and ordinarily wouldn’t be sorry to see him sacked because he is as hopeless as Grayling but in fairness to him he has been very loyal to May.
As a Leaver, I still prefer broad church political parties to narrow single issue ones.
This is the Legislature taking the piss.....on the road to No Deal.
E and F both worry me in their wording. E is a 'confirmatory' vote, the obvious meaning of which would mean we do not automatically remain if it is not confirmed, but what then? So I assume the intention would be it is not really confirmatory at all, and that remain would be on it. F is about a vote to prevent no deal, but does that mean it would be explicitly revoke vs no deal?
And lookign at the link briefly i think G is actually revoke? Although they term if 'parliamentary supremacy'.
Liverpool as determined as the Tories and Ferrari to win it would seem, once again.
Well, yes, of course the PM....
Pete Bonnington, Hamilton's race engineer says: "Get in there Lewis - that was a hell of a race and an awesome drive."
Hamilton: "Guys, that was extremely unfortunate for Charles. He drove such a great race! We've got work to do to try and keep these guys on our tails."
Perhaps the government will actually have to allow a free vote for all its MPs this time including the Cabinet - they aren't fooling anyone that they are united, it's time to see what the total votes for and against are.
So far when no one abstains May's deal is most popular, but not the least unpopular. Hopefully if everyone actually votes we'll see if the other options with a lot of support are, in fact, more unpopular.
(which makes less sense now you have edited Togo!)
F1: if you only sometimes watch the highlights, tonight's are some you'll want to watch.
He was suspended, reinstated and then resigned. The reason he was suspended is very much not unclear. The reason he resigned, is.
Tormod
Uisdean
Eachann
Friseal
Teàrlach
and of course the biggy
Dòmhnall
We already knew there were 8 options. It is expected that this will be winnowed down somehow now.
#ClassicLetwin #AnotherLetwinBallsUp
Nottingham East: All Women Shortlist
Luton South: AWS
Streatham: AWS
Liverpool Wavertree: AWS
Pentistone and Stocksbridge. AWS
Stockport: Open
Ilford South: Open
Also some of these options are a bit...weird. I hope they make more sense on the order paper than in a tweet.
Being a Liverpool fan is going to kill me.
I'm just hoping Liverpool are the Leicester of this year - clearly not the best team in the league, but squeak over the line nevertheless. Some of them do not
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmagenda/OP190401.pdf
I'm irritated it is not even the plan to definitively settle it tomorrow. Given they had a first go last week, why couldn't they say that no matter what tomorrow they whittle them down to the final option? It adds to the question of what last week was even about.
I really don't see why Bercow would call some of them again though, if they receive so few votes last time
Couldn't score in a brothel.
Looks like we may well spoil Wolves party. Shame