politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For the first time since the E.U. referendum it is possible we

williamglenn said:

GIN1138 said:

williamglenn said:

GIN1138 said:

Dura_Ace said:

dyedwoolie said:

One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.

Surely the Cons would rather have JC in a minority coalition of chaos than the Labour majority that would eventuate if they voted down the QS. So Cons abstaining could be their best ploy.

That's the 1923 option... The next year (1924) Tories went on to win a landslide.

However with Brexit countdown clock ticking I don't think it's viable.

If the Tories can't get a QS speech through it'll be a new election, IMO.

Parliament is sovereign. If Corbyn formed an administration they could wait for chaos and introduce a bill to revoke Article 50, splitting the Labour party and setting themselves to win the subsequent election on a Remain platform.

Why on Earth would the Tories want to revoke A50 when it would split and destroy them?

Brexit is splitting and destroying them already. At least putting themselves on the right side of the events that are about to unfold would offer them some future.

Dear Oracle,
Please tell me how future events are about to unfold.
Yours,
A fan

I bet May is looking forward to the next PMqs .

GIN1138 said:

calum said:

AlastairMeeks said:

There are some very weak and wobbly Tories today.

It should be obvious, but the DUP really really really do not want Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near the levers of power. The chances of the Conservatives and the DUP not reaching some form of accommodation are slim.

Why do the Tories need a deal with them ?

Because they can't pass a QS speech without the DUP?

They can if the Lib Dems or SNP abstain

IanB2 said:

Stereotomy said:

Slightly more on topic, one piece of analysis during the election that seemed correct was that it wasn't about Brexit nearly as much as May had hoped. But now everyone seems to be treating the result like it was the entire voting public conspiring to send an incredibly cryptic message on Brexit.

People vote for all sorts of reasons - just as many of the votes for Brexit probably had little to do with the EU.

Fact remains, the PM asked a specific question seeking a larger majority and mandate for her approach to Brexit, and the answer is no.

That's another strange thing. Why do we all now believe that "I need a mandate for Brexit" thing? It was transparently just an opportunistic move

NorthofStoke said:

GIN1138 said:

calum said:

AlastairMeeks said:

There are some very weak and wobbly Tories today.

It should be obvious, but the DUP really really really do not want Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near the levers of power. The chances of the Conservatives and the DUP not reaching some form of accommodation are slim.

Why do the Tories need a deal with them ?

Because they can't pass a QS speech without the DUP?

They can if the Lib Dems or SNP abstain

or if the DUP abstain right ?

OblitusSumMe said:

IanB2 said:

dyedwoolie said:

One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.

under our unwritten rules it leads directly to an election, surely?

We have written rules in the fixed-term Parliament act. If a confidence vote is lost there is a two-week period for an alternative government to gain the confidence of the House. Then there is a new election.

I don't know if the Act sets out a period following an election in which a Queen's Speech has to be passed.

The Act says specifically that a QS vote is a confidence vote?

OblitusSumMe said:

IanB2 said:

dyedwoolie said:

One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.

under our unwritten rules it leads directly to an election, surely?

We have written rules in the fixed-term Parliament act. If a confidence vote is lost there is a two-week period for an alternative government to gain the confidence of the House. Then there is a new election.

I don't know if the Act sets out a period following an election in which a Queen's Speech has to be passed.

I don't think it does, and that is a big hole in the FTPA. Conceivably we could be in the position that no government can be formed that will have the confidence of the House, but the traditional mechanism whereby the monarch dissolves Parliament as a result is no longer available. It would require the House to either vote by a 2/3 majority to dissolve or to go through a formal motion of no confidence and pass two weeks without a vote of confidence.

not_on_fire said:

Philip_Thompson said:

not_on_fire said:

dyedwoolie said:

rottenborough said:

dyedwoolie said:

rottenborough said:

GIN1138 said:

Slackbladder said:

GIN1138 said:

If May has to postpone the Queens Speech (because she hasn't got the numbers to get it through) will HMQ be compelled to send for Jezza to see what he can do?

I guess so... although that seems uplikely to happen to..

New elections anyone?

Yep. She can send for Jezza but he clearly doesn't have the numbers to get a QS through either, so then what happens?

New elections the only possibility.

We could be in a new election campaign by the end of June!

Can the Opposition force a vote on No Confidence? They should do it before DUP deal is sewn up if they want a new GE.

Parliament won't be sitting if no deal is sewn up, she can't guarantee passing a QS without it, hence trying to delay. No no confidence vote is possible until parliament meets and then the first vote is QS which is a de facto vote of confidence.

How can she stop Parliament from sitting after a GE? This is one aspect of the constitution that I didn't know about.

Parliament opens with the QS. Until then it is not sitting. There is no other possible way for parliament to sit. It sits according to the provision of the QS if the vote passes.

So if Liz decided if she could do a better job herself than the peasants who rule in her name, could she just declare herself permanently unavailable to make the speech?

No because the Peasants are already in charge. The PM remains the PM, the Chancellor is still the Chancellor etc whether Parliament is sitting or not.

But they can't pass any laws! Is anyone actually an MP yet, or does that only occur once Parliament is officially opened?

The swearing in of MPs, and election of a Speaker, is scheduled for this week.

NorthofStoke said:

GIN1138 said:

calum said:

AlastairMeeks said:

There are some very weak and wobbly Tories today.

It should be obvious, but the DUP really really really do not want Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near the levers of power. The chances of the Conservatives and the DUP not reaching some form of accommodation are slim.

Why do the Tories need a deal with them ?

Because they can't pass a QS speech without the DUP?

They can if the Lib Dems or SNP abstain

Uh, really? How would the maths for that work?

SouthamObserver said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Danny565 said:

I wonder if now is a good time to bet on May still being Tory leader at the next election.

As much as people are talking like any replacement for her would be an improvement in electoral terms, this isn't at all obvious to me. Do people really think Hammond or Rudd or Gove would have more popular appeal?

It will be Boris. He is not as popular as the right wing press has led us to believe. The further north you go the more people laugh at him rather than with him. And beyond the UK he is, of course, actively damaging to UK interests.

Boris twice won Labour London and it was Boris who made a crucial difference between Remain scraping home in the EU referendum and a narrow Leave win, if Corbyn gets in the UK will of course become Venezuela without the sunshine

Winning against Livingstone, certainly the second time, has similarities with winning against Corbyn.

The big difference between then and now is that Boris had a very powerful and effective ally in the Evening Standard, which spent many weeks relentlessly throwing mud at Ken (deservedly so). Corbyn has had all that and survived.

Boris is not the man he was after 10 years at the top.

The Tories won't be able to run on strong or stable, economic competence or trustworthiness with Boris. Not sure what they would run on. Probably wrap themselves in the Union Jack and hope for the best.

tpfkar said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

On that note, I'm tempted by Jo Swinson at 3.5 to be next Lib Dem leader.

I think Cable's past it, and whilst I rate Lamb, he lost last time.

Thoughts?

Cable is past it, and I don't think he'll even stand. I think Tom Brake may throw his hat into the ring too. Lamb vs Brake vs Swinson?

As well as Jo Swinson I would cover Ed Davey, I think he would stand. I understand he was planning to in 2015 when he lost his seat. I'd then look to lay in contest.
Personally I think Tim Farron should stay in post. He's growing into the role and with the risk of another election in a matter of months, not convinced a leadership contest is a good use of energy at present.

You might like to give a thought to Alistair Carmichael too. He is after all a former Cabinet Minister, and the Lib Dems are starting to recover ground in Scotland.

But as tpfkar says, you might have along wait. I have not picked up any anti-Farron noises within the Lib Dem ranks. The only people complaining are Conservatives.

FF43 said:

On the EFTA Court and ECJ case law, the Wikipedia article is clear:

In order to secure a level playing field for individuals and economic operators in both pillars, special homogeneity provisions have been laid down in the EEA Agreement and in the Surveillance and Court Agreement. Under these rules, the EFTA Court shall follow the relevant case law of the ECJ on provisions of Union law that are identical in substance to provisions of EEA law rendered prior to the date of signature of the EEA Agreement (2 May 1992) and shall pay due account to the principles laid down by the European Court of Justice's relevant case law rendered after that date. The EFTA Court’s jurisprudence is in fact based on the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The politically important distinction between old and new ECJ case law has largely been qualified in practice. The EFTA Court also refers to the case law of the General Court of the European Union (EGC). All three EEA courts (ECJ, EGC, EFTA Court) have not only emphasized the need for a uniform interpretation of EU and EEA law, but have actively seen to it that homogeneity is preserved.

completely different

PaulM said:

NorthofStoke said:

GIN1138 said:

calum said:

AlastairMeeks said:

There are some very weak and wobbly Tories today.

It should be obvious, but the DUP really really really do not want Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near the levers of power. The chances of the Conservatives and the DUP not reaching some form of accommodation are slim.

Why do the Tories need a deal with them ?

Because they can't pass a QS speech without the DUP?

They can if the Lib Dems or SNP abstain

or if the DUP abstain right ?

Yes, also true and more likely than a vote agains even if the talks break down

tpfkar said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

On that note, I'm tempted by Jo Swinson at 3.5 to be next Lib Dem leader.

I think Cable's past it, and whilst I rate Lamb, he lost last time.

Thoughts?

Cable is past it, and I don't think he'll even stand.

I think Tom Brake may throw his hat into the ring too.

Lamb vs Brake vs Swinson?

As well as Jo Swinson I would cover Ed Davey, I think he would stand. I understand he was planning to in 2015 when he lost his seat. I'd then look to lay in contest.

Personally I think Tim Farron should stay in post. He's growing into the role and with the risk of another election in a matter of months, not convinced a leadership contest is a good use of energy at present.

I would wait to see if there is a contest this side of a GE, as the runners and riders are not in safe seats.

I expect Tim to stay in post until conference at least, but perhaps a larger profile for others in writing the manifesto and campaign.

I cannot see the current situation lasting, everyone needs to be prepared for a further election, not navel gazing in opposition.

There can't be many worse GE result scenarios than the one we have.

Every eventuality I go down I see major problems/complexities/pitfalls/potential extinction level events for political parties...

FUBAR.

Stereotomy said:

NorthofStoke said:

GIN1138 said:

calum said:

AlastairMeeks said:

There are some very weak and wobbly Tories today.

It should be obvious, but the DUP really really really do not want Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near the levers of power. The chances of the Conservatives and the DUP not reaching some form of accommodation are slim.

Why do the Tories need a deal with them ?

Because they can't pass a QS speech without the DUP?

They can if the Lib Dems or SNP abstain

Uh, really? How would the maths for that work?

Oh never mind, I thought this was about a lab qs for some reason

Fenster said:

There can't be many worse GE result scenarios than the one we have.

Every eventuality I go down I see major problems/complexities/pitfalls/potential extinction level events for political parties...

FUBAR.

Totally worth it for all that sweet CONTROL we're going to get back.

Re The Queen's speech, is the issue more of what goes in it, rather than getting support for it.

Stereotomy said:

NorthofStoke said:

GIN1138 said:

calum said:

AlastairMeeks said:

There are some very weak and wobbly Tories today.

It should be obvious, but the DUP really really really do not want Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near the levers of power. The chances of the Conservatives and the DUP not reaching some form of accommodation are slim.

Why do the Tories need a deal with them ?

Because they can't pass a QS speech without the DUP?

They can if the Lib Dems or SNP abstain

Uh, really? How would the maths for that work?

Easy. There are 650 MPs, 7 of whom are Sinn Fein and don't attend. If 35 SNP MPs abstain, the Conservatives need a majority out of 608. Half of 608 is 304. The Conservatives have more than that by themselves.

Or: There are 650 MPs, 7 of whom are Sinn Fein and don't attend. If 12 Lib Dem MPs abstain, the Conservatives need a majority out of 631. Half plus 1 of 631 is 316. The Conservatives have more than that by themselves.

Or: There are 650 MPs, 7 of whom are Sinn Fein and don't attend. If 10 DUP MPs abstain, the Conservatives need a majority out of 633. Half plus 1 of 633 is 317. The Conservatives have more than that by themselves.

Fenster said:

There can't be many worse GE result scenarios than the one we have.

Every eventuality I go down I see major problems/complexities/pitfalls/potential extinction level events for political parties...

FUBAR.

I doubt it. The tories still got 42% of the vote. A better campaign with a better leader might not keep them in office, but we're a long way off them being wiped out.

Sean_F said:

NorthofStoke said:

GIN1138 said:

calum said:

AlastairMeeks said:

There are some very weak and wobbly Tories today.

It should be obvious, but the DUP really really really do not want Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near the levers of power. The chances of the Conservatives and the DUP not reaching some form of accommodation are slim.

Why do the Tories need a deal with them ?

Because they can't pass a QS speech without the DUP?

They can if the Lib Dems or SNP abstain

If Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid, and Greens vote against the QS, that's 314 to 318 Conservatives, even if the DUP and Sylvia Hermon abstain.

What about the Tory awkward squad? Can May count on all her MPs?

PClipp said:

tpfkar said:

rcs1000 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

On that note, I'm tempted by Jo Swinson at 3.5 to be next Lib Dem leader.

I think Cable's past it, and whilst I rate Lamb, he lost last time.

Thoughts?

Cable is past it, and I don't think he'll even stand. I think Tom Brake may throw his hat into the ring too. Lamb vs Brake vs Swinson?

As well as Jo Swinson I would cover Ed Davey, I think he would stand. I understand he was planning to in 2015 when he lost his seat. I'd then look to lay in contest.
Personally I think Tim Farron should stay in post. He's growing into the role and with the risk of another election in a matter of months, not convinced a leadership contest is a good use of energy at present.

You might like to give a thought to Alistair Carmichael too. He is after all a former Cabinet Minister, and the Lib Dems are starting to recover ground in Scotland.

But as tpfkar says, you might have along wait. I have not picked up any anti-Farron noises within the Lib Dem ranks. The only people complaining are Conservatives.

Pretty sure they aren't complaining about Farron keeping his job.

surbiton said:

IanB2 said:

dyedwoolie said:

One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.

under our unwritten rules it leads directly to an election, surely?

If the QS falls, the Queen has to ask Jezza to form a government and give him a few days to do that. Otherwise, she will be entering politics.

It cannot be up to her to decide if Jezza can form a government or have his QS passed. Only time will tell. Maybe, it might be a minority Labour government and the Tories will abstain so that it doe snot trigger a new election during which Labour will be the government in situ.

It isn't completely impossible that a Corbyn QS could go through if Labour was able to get the DUP to abstain, and everyone else to support. That would need a lot of concessions, but the reward is high.

Labour's biggest problem is that he has few of the skills needed to succeed in such an environment.

Danny565 said:

https://twitter.com/ElectCalculus/status/874225962287857664

ROFL

Danny565 said:

https://twitter.com/ElectCalculus/status/874225962287857664

Ha, the biggest winners are Sinn Fein! No way the DUP will support these

The real news of the day.
https://twitter.com/DavidCoburnUKip/status/874213251797704704

Jonathan said:

What about the Tory awkward squad? Can May count on all her MPs?

No

If Brexit is being thought about a bit more carefully as a result of the election it's a good thing IMO. Everything was moving a bit too quickly before.

paulyork64 said:

not_on_fire said:

Slackbladder said:

NorthofStoke said:

GIN1138 said:

calum said:

AlastairMeeks said:

There are some very weak and wobbly Tories today.

It should be obvious, but the DUP really really really do not want Jeremy Corbyn anywhere near the levers of power. The chances of the Conservatives and the DUP not reaching some form of accommodation are slim.

Why do the Tories need a deal with them ?

Because they can't pass a QS speech without the DUP?

They can if the Lib Dems or SNP abstain

Would Liz accept that though? There would have to be a pre-agreement by both those parties, which would effectively be a C/S agreement by it's self.

Yes, Liz will not turn up to do the speech if there is any possibility of it being voted down

Royal Ascot next week. so if it's not monday will probs have to be following monday.

Joking aside, I think the Queen would give up a day of the GiGis in order to ensure the country has a government

Lucian_Fletcher said:

IanB2 said:

surbiton said:

IanB2 said:

dyedwoolie said:

One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.

under our unwritten rules it leads directly to an election, surely?

If the QS falls, the Queen has to ask Jezza to form a government and give him a few days to do that. Otherwise, she will be entering politics.

It cannot be up to her to decide if Jezza can form a government or have his QS passed. Only time will tell. Maybe, it might be a minority Labour government and the Tories will abstain so that it doe snot trigger a new election during which Labour will be the government in situ.

It isn't completely impossible that a Corbyn QS could go through if Labour was able to get the DUP to abstain, and everyone else to support. That would need a lot of concessions, but the reward is high.

Labour's biggest problem is that he has few of the skills needed to succeed in such an environment.

The DUP will not. ever. ever. allow Corbyn in while they can stop it.

In which case May doesn't have to offer them anything.. simples....

Maybe not as simple as that...

Theuniondivvie said:

The real news of the day.
https://twitter.com/DavidCoburnUKip/status/874213251797704704

Does he mean Farage?

Lucian_Fletcher said:

IanB2 said:

surbiton said:

IanB2 said:

dyedwoolie said:

One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.

under our unwritten rules it leads directly to an election, surely?

If the QS falls, the Queen has to ask Jezza to form a government and give him a few days to do that. Otherwise, she will be entering politics.

It cannot be up to her to decide if Jezza can form a government or have his QS passed. Only time will tell. Maybe, it might be a minority Labour government and the Tories will abstain so that it doe snot trigger a new election during which Labour will be the government in situ.

It isn't completely impossible that a Corbyn QS could go through if Labour was able to get the DUP to abstain, and everyone else to support. That would need a lot of concessions, but the reward is high.

Labour's biggest problem is that he has few of the skills needed to succeed in such an environment.

The DUP will not. ever. ever. allow Corbyn in while they can stop it.

I believe the correct phrase, bellowed in an Antrim accent is:

"Never. Never. Never. Never."

Slackbladder said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

IanB2 said:

surbiton said:

IanB2 said:

dyedwoolie said:

One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.

under our unwritten rules it leads directly to an election, surely?

If the QS falls, the Queen has to ask Jezza to form a government and give him a few days to do that. Otherwise, she will be entering politics.

It cannot be up to her to decide if Jezza can form a government or have his QS passed. Only time will tell. Maybe, it might be a minority Labour government and the Tories will abstain so that it doe snot trigger a new election during which Labour will be the government in situ.

It isn't completely impossible that a Corbyn QS could go through if Labour was able to get the DUP to abstain, and everyone else to support. That would need a lot of concessions, but the reward is high.

Labour's biggest problem is that he has few of the skills needed to succeed in such an environment.

The DUP will not. ever. ever. allow Corbyn in while they can stop it.

In which case May doesn't have to offer them anything.. simples....

Maybe not as simple as that...

The delay may be due to internal Tory "discussions"

Lucian_Fletcher said:

IanB2 said:

surbiton said:

IanB2 said:

dyedwoolie said:

One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.

under our unwritten rules it leads directly to an election, surely?

If the QS falls, the Queen has to ask Jezza to form a government and give him a few days to do that. Otherwise, she will be entering politics.

It cannot be up to her to decide if Jezza can form a government or have his QS passed. Only time will tell. Maybe, it might be a minority Labour government and the Tories will abstain so that it doe snot trigger a new election during which Labour will be the government in situ.

It isn't completely impossible that a Corbyn QS could go through if Labour was able to get the DUP to abstain, and everyone else to support. That would need a lot of concessions, but the reward is high.

Labour's biggest problem is that he has few of the skills needed to succeed in such an environment.

The DUP will not. ever. ever. allow Corbyn in while they can stop it.

Nothing nailed on in politics these days. If May can screw up a 20pt lead, this is a piece of cake.

Most continental political cartoons are rather poor IMO, but the Danish 'shrinking superwoman suit' one hits the spot - see the selection at 12:55 here:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/jun/12/general-election-2017-theresa-may-faces-conservative-backbenchers-politics-live

Danny565 said:

https://twitter.com/ElectCalculus/status/874225962287857664

Assuming that Sinn Fein don't turn up, that makes the threshold for a working majority 296 so the Tories would just squeak in on the new boundaries.

But projected SF 9 and DUP 7! Clearly the DUP are going to want the new boundaries shelved as part of their shopping list!

https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/874234545150754816
https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/874234811149320193

AlastairMeeks said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

IanB2 said:

surbiton said:

IanB2 said:

dyedwoolie said:

One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.

under our unwritten rules it leads directly to an election, surely?

If the QS falls, the Queen has to ask Jezza to form a government and give him a few days to do that. Otherwise, she will be entering politics.

It cannot be up to her to decide if Jezza can form a government or have his QS passed. Only time will tell. Maybe, it might be a minority Labour government and the Tories will abstain so that it doe snot trigger a new election during which Labour will be the government in situ.

It isn't completely impossible that a Corbyn QS could go through if Labour was able to get the DUP to abstain, and everyone else to support. That would need a lot of concessions, but the reward is high.

Labour's biggest problem is that he has few of the skills needed to succeed in such an environment.

The DUP will not. ever. ever. allow Corbyn in while they can stop it.

I believe the correct phrase, bellowed in an Antrim accent is:

"Never. Never. Never. Never."

The DUP will never have a better opportunity to dictate the terms of Irish reunification. It depends how much they are thinking of the long term.

TOPPING said:

isam said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

Scott_P said:

isam said:

Both Labour and Tories have accepted the referendum result and are commited to implementing it.

And neither of them has an electoral mandate to do so.

Remedial democracy, again.

For someone who is a laughing stock due to lack of understanding, you are amazingly smug. Brings to mind 'Farage will not be in the debates"

It's been voted for by the public, passed in the House of Commons, and committed to by both parties in their manifestos, I won't lose too much sleep.

BUT WHAT IS IT?

As you Leavers always tell us - it is up to the government to determine what that means.

Would you be happy with us being in EEA/EFTA?

As long as we leave I don't care. Must have said this 40 or 50 times now

Excellent. So leaving and getting into the EEA/EFTA with FoM and ECJ subservience has you dancing in the streets. Good to know.

Why do you have to try and score points like a child in the playground? I have never said there should this or that kind of Brexit, I said I would have accepted Cameron's deal as long as we were out. It really stifles sensible debate when people make comments like yours, theyre not even witty

rpjs said:

Danny565 said:

https://twitter.com/ElectCalculus/status/874225962287857664

Assuming that Sinn Fein don't turn up, that makes the threshold for a working majority 296 so the Tories would just squeak in on the new boundaries.

But projected SF 9 and DUP 7! Clearly the DUP are going to want the new boundaries shelved as part of their shopping list!

Plaid lose 3/4 seats and the Greens their only seat so would also be unhappy

Jonathan said:

If May goes, it still doesn't solve the problem of passing a Queen's Speech. This is a right old mess.

If they don't sort it out, we're going straight back to the polls.

Don't they just roll out their manifesto? Maybe with a nod to their partners in the DUP?


OT. Just heard Winifred Robinson ask her studio guest " How many of these new mattress companies are there?"

To which he replied " They've sprung up in their hundreds"

Labour manifesto made it clear we would be leaving the EU and the single market. The tories' position is the same

There is no mandate for changing this, and ironically for a "Brexit election" Brexit was really not an issue for most voters. Lab and Con inclined Leavers could vote for their preferred red or blue for all the other usual reasons sure in the knowledge that Leave was a done deal.

This is surely why the UKIP vote went to the Con and Lab columns in much more equal numbers than predicted.

For MPs of all sides to now float the idea of not leaving the EU after all will see Farage and UKIP back (literally) with a vengeance. Leavers would to put it mildly not be happy.

Slackbladder said:

Dura_Ace said:

dyedwoolie said:

One factor we have to consider here is the constitutional implication of a QS falling. It would be a highly embarrassing moment for the monarchy to have her speech rejected by parliament which is why I'm wary that she would send for Jezza. Well, she'd send for him but unless he could persuade her he could definitely pass her speech, I think she'd have no choice but to dissolve and go to the country? A QS being voted down would provoke a constitutional crisis surely.

Surely the Cons would rather have JC in a minority coalition of chaos than the Labour majority that would eventuate if they voted down the QS. So Cons abstaining could be their best ploy.

If JC then gets a chance he'll just call elections anyway.

He can't just 'call elections'. FTPA.

Dura_Ace said:

IanB2 said:

Labour's biggest problem is that he has few of the skills needed to succeed in such an environment.

Yeah, we've heard that one before.

Yes and no. The argument from the Tories wasn't that he was a bad campaigner, but that he could never succeed given what he was (and had in the past been) campaigning for.

The evidence of his being a poor manager abounds.