politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The CON leadership line-up is worryingly thin
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The CON leadership line-up is worryingly thin
Don’t you like farce? The Conservative party leadership election is dishing up plenty of it, and all of the blackest variety. Like horror movies, there are rules for Conservative party leadership elections:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Britain Elects @britainelects 16m16 minutes ago
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 37% (+1)
LAB: 30% (-2)
UKIP: 15% (-)
LDEM: 8% (+1)
GRN: 4% (-1)
(via ICM, online / 01 - 03 Jul)
One could also conclude that she is a clear lay at 5.0.
It seems a convenient hook to attack based on rather than an act of principle.
Edit: OK, CoE, Home and Foreign are the traditional ones, but still pushing the point a little.
The field is of course a consequence of Osborne and Johnson having been put (or putting themselves) out of the running, and Hague Mark II not being realistic.
"We’ve gained exclusive access to a leaked plan that was put together by the Vote Leave campaign, the UKIP, and Nigel Farage. It includes detailed solutions for the following political and economic issues expected after the United Kingdom departs the European Union."
http://thebrexitplan.com/
Leadsom has nowhere near the experience that Blair had when he became PM.
According to professor Pierre-Yves Monjal, a public law specialist from the University of Tours, France does have the legal power to say stop.
“France could use article 56 of the Vienna Convention by applying the general EU rules (on terminating a treaty). But first we must look at whether the two countries took the initiative of including a 'termination' (denunciation) clause, which is certainly the case."
The last article of the treaty of Touquet grants the two signatory powers the option of ending the treaty “at any time”, simply by informing the other party in writing, via diplomatic channels. There would however be a two year delay before the change came into effect.
France also has powers to make changes to the treaty by a “simple exchange of notes” as well as taking the more drastic measure of employing its right to “take all necessary measures to safeguard its sovereignty and security”.
If President François Hollande’s under-pressure government chose to make what would be a hugely controversial move, “everything would depend on the executive”, says Monjal.
“Parliament could be consulted but it is not mandatory. It would simply be enough if France announced to the UK that it was no longer willing to apply Le Touquet treaty,”
However the referendum has lead to a strange situation. The Chancellor would otherwise have been there. Also worth remembering that the trend for younger politicians in senior posts means that we are bound to have less experienced PMs.
@TheresaMay2016: I'm delighted to have the support of @DavidDavisMP for my campaign to provide the strong, united leadership our country needs. Thank you -TM
As for being out and into the WTO that's the alternative no matter what. Either we are fully in the EU, we are able to negotiate a deal, or we are out - that is the same whether we've invoked the Article or not. Again if the EU-27 refuse to negotiate until we invoke Article 50 (as they've unanimously claimed they will) what are we supposed to do? Simply refuse to invoke, refuse to start negotiations? Because that is essentially just putting up the white flag and saying we are remaining afterall.
The uncertainty will only go away after a deal is reached. A deal can only be reached after Article 50 is invoked.
As Shakespeare wrote in Macbeth: If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well. It were done quickly.
Most seem to be saying the government has the power to declare, but if it is the case that the power lies with parliament, did the Act transfer that power anywhere else? Since the referendum is not legally binding (although politically suicidal to try to prevent), that is fact, then if the power does lie with parliament they will need to vote upon it.
Remain or Leave, I don't see what the problem with a vote in parliament would be, assuming the legal authority does indeed lie there - ok, it may well be remainers who are pushing for it to cause problems, but if the power lies with parliament the parliament needs to vote, and I'm sure they would not dare risk thwarting the will of the people; they are far too scared to even ask for second referendum right now, and at least that would, if won, mean another democratic statement from the people.
If the legal power does not lie with parliament, then a vote might be politically sensible - as well as drawing a line between those accepting of the result and not - but not necessary.
As Labour civil war intensifies, Momentum has just said it's doubled its membership to 12k and is receiving small donations of £11k per day.
Let's not forget he was the favourite going into the 2005 leadership contest!!
So how about Mr Meeks, writing your view about Farron (remember him) wanting the LDs to stand on a "get us back in" commitment in their 2020 manifesto irrespective of what happens over the next 4 years? Is that a) wise, b) desperate or c) a hostage to future evenets
"Hollande said on Wednesday (29 June 2016) that Britain's Brexit vote should not change the France-UK deal"
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/francois-hollande-rejects-suspension-le-touquet-treaty-calais-despite-uk-brexit-1568233
That on its own ought to disqualify her as PM material.
Those negotiations aren't just one of the jobs of the next PM They ought to be his prime focus---pretty much his only concern. It is absolutely key. This is personal to the PM. The harder, and better he works and achieves with our European friends, the better for all of us.
I think that qualifies me as a floating voter.
Oh my aching sides.
I don't understand when Boris said “I’ll be right back”, “Hello?” or “Who’s there?”
If the Brexiteers are right, we also need to be negotiating with all of the the other trading nations in the World.
Are they less important than the EU, in which case the case for leaving has a slight problem?
Meanwhile Labour have a choice between Jeremy Corbyn and Angela Eagle. And the LibDems have Tim Farron.
The EU isn't generally able to deal get anything seriously contentious done without an actual, proper crisis deadline, and it can't always do it even then. This sounds like it's going to be contentious, and there are going to be 28 governments that all need to go through the motions of getting the best possible deal.
With Article 50 it's easy: The deadline is 2 years after they invoke it. But it's hard to imagine basically getting the whole thing worked out then waiting 2 years before finalizing it, so what's going to make this actually happen if it isn't the Article 50 timetable?
Our next PM potentially
And the betting markets did very very well for most of us here on PB over the course of June 23rd and early June 24th thank you very much. Won't hear a word against them.
Obama? No, not at all, despite being leader of the most powerful country.
Putin? A troublesome leader with influence but not one to be statesmanlike.
Merkel? One of the better candidates, but recent years have shown her vaunted caution and judgement may well be simple dithering in some instances.
Ban Ki Moon? UN leaders are invisible, so if he's done anything worthwhile who would know.
It's just called "Cellar" now.
It's low hanging populist fruit for the centre right. Most importantly, the FN will be campaigning HARD to repeal it - why would Juppe choose to die on that hill rather than just capitulate and scrap it?
If France announced it IS invoking that clause then that would be "becomes reality".
(And a profitable one!)
We've got some pretty potent ammunition of our own if the French want to get into a pissing match. I don't think they do - it's just dog whistling to the French right.
Trade deals are immaterial (except at the margin, with out-of-date restrictive groups like the EU). That is where the new PM should concentrate, and really only there because of recent history.
I'll give up my Knighthood.
What this does show is that politics doesn't really attract the best and the brightest anymore. And why would it - we treat politicians like dirt, pay them nothing, and assume they're all in it for themselves. We get what we deserve.
Farewell Yorrick..
May is the only grown up running. But it's hard to imagine being a fervent May supporter - she's the only plausible choice.
GA=Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance (some would say they can drop the "centre" bit)
LF= Labour First
Labour First, Progress and Baxter were usually recommended together as the "moderate"/"right" (depending on who was referring to them) slate.
Ann Black (GA) 301
Christine Shawcroft (GA) 189
Pete Willsman (GA) 164
Ellie Reeves (LF) 149
Claudia Webbe (GA) 145
Darren Williams (GA) 144
Bex Bailey (PROG) 132
Rhea Wolfson (GA) 130
Johanna Baxter (Ind) 123
Luke Akehurst (LF) 107
Parmjit Dhanda (PROG) 105
Eddie Izzard (Ind) 91
Peter Wheeler (LF) 87
John Gallagher (Ind) 25
Amanat Gul (Ind) 4
GA 1073 (+321 compared to 2014)
Lab First+Progress+Baxter 703 (+107)
Candidates in both 2016 and 2014
Black +81
Shawcroft +76
Williams +68
Willsman +48
Reeves +34
Akehurst +13
Wheeler -5
Baxter -39
We haven't gone away you know.
The room laughed with her twice.
I'm feeling pretty confident about her.
If there were no EU, we'd probably want to do trade deals with 9 or 10 of the EU27, tops.
I'm not saying they don't matter, of course. It'd take a lot of spade work to figure out what the UK's economic priorities should be. More than I'm prepared to do, unpaid
One interesting point that was made was that Theresa May actually has a very good record of patient international negotiation, for example with the French over the Calais jungle, and with the Jordanians over Abu Qatada (a problem which several of her predecessors had failed to solve).
#andrealeadsom #toryleadership
In some cases it's the same people holding these opposite views, neither of which is particularly helpful to the UK interest.