Deleted

JonCisBack said:

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.

They will have their chance to vote against it in the second referendum.

SouthamObserver said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

SouthamObserver said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

OblitusSumMe said:

The EEA agreement includes EU legislation. Who governs EU legislation?

No. All interpretation of the EEA Agreement for EFTA members is made by the EFTA Court. They do not have to accept ECJ rulings in their decision making. The ECJ has no power to enforce their rulings upon EFTA members.

Supranational Court A determining our destiny = bad
Supranational Court B determining our destiny = good

Good luck with that. If you are still on the head of the pin by then, that is.

This seems to be more to the point. How is the UK being obliged to follow EFTA Court determined case law more acceptable than being obliged to follow CJEU determined case law?

ECJ rulings are not bound by case law. They are bound by interpretation of the treaties.

No, but UK courts are bound by decisions reached by the ECJ. And in many areas national courts refer cases to the ECJ to determine how they should interpret aspects of European law. It happens all the time with trademarks, for example. It may well happen after we leave, too - that we submit to ongoing ECJ decisions relating to European laws passed before Brexit. This could be a point of compromise for both sides.

I thought that was exactly what the great repeal bill was. Transcribing all current EU law into UK law (with the suitable amendments because no ECJ) and then amending or removing laws we don't want over time.

surbiton 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.

Which Labour policy would the DUP actually oppose ?

It's which Labour personality.

They'd happily deal with either Gordon Brown or Ed Milliband.

jonny83 said:

A close friend wants Dave back, I think his view was fully cemented when he read that Cameron contacted those MP's that lost when May didn't.

I did point out Dave was a class act when Mrs May became PM and she fired a load of Tory staffers, almost with glee.

Remember, she only contacted those Tory MPs who lost after it became public that Dave had contacted them and she hadn't.

She's a f*cking pox on the party and the country.

She needs to fuck off now.

foxinsoxuk 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.

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.

When is the soonest that we would have another GE, bearing in mind the Brexit negotiations and the period of time allowed for May, then maybe A N Other Tory then Corbyn to try to get a coalition that worked?
Ken Clarke as Prime Minister could probably get the LibDems and Green on board, maybe even SNP/PC (just a thought ;-) )

logical_song said:

foxinsoxuk 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.

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.

When is the soonest that we would have another GE, bearing in mind the Brexit negotiations and the period of time allowed for May, then maybe A N Other Tory then Corbyn to try to get a coalition that worked?
Ken Clarke as Prime Minister could probably get the LibDems and Green on board, maybe even SNP/PC (just a thought ;-) )

Peter Bone?

On the Con-DUP deal, I suspect agreeing this is as much of a challenge on the Conservative side as it is on the DUP side.

TheScreamingEagles said:

jonny83 said:

A close friend wants Dave back, I think his view was fully cemented when he read that Cameron contacted those MP's that lost when May didn't.

I did point out Dave was a class act when Mrs May became PM and she fired a load of Tory staffers, almost with glee.

Remember, she only contacted those Tory MPs who lost after it became public that Dave had contacted them and she hadn't.

She's a f*cking pox on the party and the country.

She needs to fuck off now.

If you can just hold on until 5pm this evening...

YBarddCwsc said:

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!

The main anomaly is in Wales. In Scotland, the boundaries got redrawn after devolution, but in Wales they never did. All the Welsh seats are tiny.

The simplest thing for the Tories to do is correct the anomaly in Wales. That is probably worth a handful of seats to them.

That isn't really practical given the formal position.

Morris_Dancer said:

Blimey. Over £8m bet on the next PM market on Betfair.

£3 of that is mine, backing the awesome Priti

rpjs said:

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.

Is there the option for the govt to tie the QS motion to one of confidence (ie vote this down and we're out)? I think that was the way Major got the Maastricht bastards in line a couple of times, wasn't it?

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Wondering if Tory hard Remainers demand a second referendum?

Please. No more referendums or elections.

Just think of all of the opportunities to lose money!

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Wondering if Tory hard Remainers demand a second referendum?

Please. No more referendums or elections.

It's the combined mandates from the last two that are crucifying the Conservatives. It might be the only way to release the pressure.

I was a strong remainer in 2016 but am now of the opinion Brexit is now a boil that needs to be lanced for all three parties. Even the Lib Dems will not make any significant gains in their former west country heartland seats until we have brexited. Personally I much prefer to retain freedom of movement with a temporary brake when needed and membership of the EEA. So soft Brexit it is for me now and I think that is a consensus a majority can live with.

I see the £ is tanking again. Mrs May's difficulties are spilling over. All in sharp contrast to the extraordinary success Macron is enjoying in France. His partnership with Merkel is growing apace while Britain is becoming the poor man of Europe and a joke to boot.

The EU could have been under the dynamic leadership of the three M's. Instead we're heading for oblivion.

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?

3.5 is way too far out.
I'm told there was a push to have the LD constitution rewritten in 2015 to allow a non-MP to be Leader specifically so Swinson could stand - she has a lot of support amongst the membership.
The one potential question would be whether the new members since 2015 (more than half of the membership) know her enough.
Contenders are Swinson, Davey, Lamb, with a small chance of Cable as an Old Pope figure.

Bobajob_PB said:

Lucian

So why offer them a bean? Just say "right guys you are backing us come what may or we hand the keys of Downing St to Jezza"

I've got no idea why Theresa got on her knees and started begging. Actually, I do. I truly fear from what she said about the historic friendships and the Conservative and Unionist Party that she failed to spot the DUP are not the UUP.

Sean_F said:

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...

Not quite. A majority of four remains very tight and the Conservatives will want to pass future money bills.

This administration has a chance of lasting until 2019, up until A50 has expired, and passing a couple of budgets, possibly under a new Conservative PM. It should focus purely upon that. .

I'd suggest David Davis would be the best choice.

I would expect 2-4 by-election defeats in that time. It would be able to do very little from 2019-2022. I think an election held in 2019 for a post-Brexit "mandate" would probably see a Conservative defeat, but not a Labour landslide, and perhaps that'd be the least worst option for the Tories.

The Tories can pull back from 250-260 seats in a single parliament if Corbyn screws up, and if they stay United.

TOPPING said:

isam said:

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

The only childish thing so far said in this exchange is "I don't care what deal we get as long as we're out". It shows that you have no idea what you voted for. Which is fine; plenty of people vote on gut feeling. Just don't try to say that you are having any kind of "sensible debate" about it.

I think isam's point is absolutely reasonable actually - for lots of people the priority is to ensure Brexit happens, but are largely indifferent about what form it takes. Moreover, they really do not want controversy about the form of Brexit to be the very thing that derails Brexit.

This is not at all dissimilar to e.g. some Scottish pro-independence voters not having strong opinions about whether Scotland should keep the pound or the monarchy after independence - even if they did have a preference, they would rather take some form of independence than none, and would be upset if the thing that prevented independence was other people unable to agree on a strategy with respect to these things. It's particularly galling if you realise that fine details can be changed in the years to come - so long as independence happens.

MyBurningEars said:

Lucian_Fletcher said:

Danny565 said:

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

Those boundaries are dead.

Sinn Fein up from 7 to 9, DUP down from 10 to 7... does that look realistic to you under the new boundaries, bearing in mind there would be changes in tactical voting? If it is correct then no wonder the boundaries are dead!

Yes. When the provisional boundaries came up I was doing a ward by ward analysis as we made several submissions to the Boundary Commission for NI. The provisional boundaries are appalling for Unionism PLC.

MaxPB said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Parliament would feel very different if David Cameron had decided to remain an MP.

Can you imagine the clamour?

If Dave and George were still MPs there wouldn't even need to be a contest, we could just have a coronation and have Dave deliver single market Brexit.

Even single market Brexit requires 2 years of fairly humiliating negotiations with broad consequences for the UK. It's not a quick fix.

williamglenn said:

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.

If unionists were thinking long term, they wouldn't be voting DUP.

I'm not bitter, I'm not.

I am.

MyBurningEars said:

TOPPING said:

isam said:

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

The only childish thing so far said in this exchange is "I don't care what deal we get as long as we're out". It shows that you have no idea what you voted for. Which is fine; plenty of people vote on gut feeling. Just don't try to say that you are having any kind of "sensible debate" about it.

I think isam's point is absolutely reasonable actually - for lots of people the priority is to ensure Brexit happens, but are largely indifferent about what form it takes. Moreover, they really do not want controversy about the form of Brexit to be the very thing that derails Brexit.

This is not at all dissimilar to e.g. some Scottish pro-independence voters not having strong opinions about whether Scotland should keep the pound or the monarchy after independence - even if they did have a preference, they would rather take some form of independence than none, and would be upset if the thing that prevented independence was other people unable to agree on a strategy with respect to these things. It's particularly galling if you realise that fine details can be changed in the years to come - so long as independence happens.

Let's see if its champions in parliament prove to be as flexible and accommodating as those supporters...

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

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...

Not quite. A majority of four remains very tight and the Conservatives will want to pass future money bills.

This administration has a chance of lasting until 2019, up until A50 has expired, and passing a couple of budgets, possibly under a new Conservative PM. It should focus purely upon that. .

I'd suggest David Davis would be the best choice.

I would expect 2-4 by-election defeats in that time. It would be able to do very little from 2019-2022. I think an election held in 2019 for a post-Brexit "mandate" would probably see a Conservative defeat, but not a Labour landslide, and perhaps that'd be the least worst option for the Tories.

The Tories can pull back from 250-260 seats in a single parliament if Corbyn screws up, and if they stay United.

2-4 by election defeats?

Nah. Actuarially that seems very unlikely.

OllyT said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Smart point from Tim Harford:

https://twitter.com/TimHarford/status/874201625468039169

Yep - it is a very good point. Labour hubris is all over the place at the moment. To win next time Labour have to convince current Tory voters to switch sides. Just assuming they will is not a good idea. That said, the economic crosswinds and Brexit generally are going to be very, very difficult for the Tories over the coming years.

Also, in an age where people seem to demand instant gratification, the youngsters who turned out to vote Corbyn might be a bit confused to see Theresa May still PM. Labour have to make it seem like they've won, else people might get bored of revolutionary politics

Because being condescending to younger voters has worked well so far. Keep it up

You don't think we live in an age where people demand instant gratification? Maybe politics is the one area that runs counter to the zeitgeist

Mortimer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

jonny83 said:

A close friend wants Dave back, I think his view was fully cemented when he read that Cameron contacted those MP's that lost when May didn't.

I did point out Dave was a class act when Mrs May became PM and she fired a load of Tory staffers, almost with glee.

Remember, she only contacted those Tory MPs who lost after it became public that Dave had contacted them and she hadn't.

She's a f*cking pox on the party and the country.

She needs to fuck off now.

Tory MPs are grown up enough not to need to receive a commiseration text from the leader who was, you know, somewhat busy.

You'd think....

Why, Dave contacted every Tory MP that lost in 2015 (and a few Lib Dems too) before he went to bed on May 8th 2015.

You only have to watch Mrs May's speech on the steps of Downing Street on Friday that she lacks humility and self awareness.

She was speaking like a woman who won a 100 seat majority not needlessly lost Dave's majority.

She's Gordon Brown without the warmth and people skills.

Mortimer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

jonny83 said:

A close friend wants Dave back, I think his view was fully cemented when he read that Cameron contacted those MP's that lost when May didn't.

I did point out Dave was a class act when Mrs May became PM and she fired a load of Tory staffers, almost with glee.

Remember, she only contacted those Tory MPs who lost after it became public that Dave had contacted them and she hadn't.

She's a f*cking pox on the party and the country.

She needs to fuck off now.

Tory MPs are grown up enough not to need to receive a commiseration text from the leader who was, you know, somewhat busy.

You'd think....

Haven't you given up yet? She's a big red pustule on the arse of the Tory party. The sooner it gets squeezed the better.

Sean_F said:

surbiton 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.

Which Labour policy would the DUP actually oppose ?

It's which Labour personality.

They'd happily deal with either Gordon Brown or Ed Milliband.

Indeed. With Corbyn and Co. Never. Never. Never.

nigel4england said:

I would have voted for the Con/LD coalition in both 2015 and 2017 had it been an option

+1

AlastairMeeks said:

Can I just mention how much I'm enjoying all this? It's HUGE fun.

Stop it, I'm finding very painful that my party, and the hard work of Cameron and Osborne is being ruined by that failed Turing test.

AlastairMeeks said:

Can I just mention how much I'm enjoying all this? It's HUGE fun.

It won't be if Corbyn gets in and bankrupts the country while still taking us out of the single market

IanB2 said:

JonCisBack said:

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.

They will have their chance to vote against it in the second referendum.

As far as the EU are concerned, Brexit is happening. As far as the Tories are concerned, Brexit is happening. Which begs the question: what on earth is going on? The simple, and perhaps correct, answer is the referendum has turned everything to sh*t.

Things will get much worse if we have another election and Labour win. Most remainers voted Labour and they'll make things extremely difficult for Corbyn. The issue will eff up his administration. He sounds very blase about this, but I hope that in reality behind the scenes they're prioritising finding some way of minimising the damage it would do to the party.

Meanwhile, the mood of the country re Brexit has subtly changed. Yes, most people are content to respect the will of the referendum and see Brexit through, but people's understanding of the consequences of Brexit is much better than it was when they were asked to make the decision. Although in theory "Brexit means Brexit" there are clearly things that people don't want to lose when EU membership ends; lots of different things depending on the group of people: businesses, researchers, students, tourists, shoppers, immigrants, expats, etc. Fulfilling all those requirements is nigh-on impossible and makes being the government of Brexit a fool's errand.

Therefore from a self-interest point of view, staying in power and seeing any kind of Brexit through will alienate many Tory voters - we just don't know which ones yet - so they're bound to lose the following election. Maybe giving the poisoned chalice to Corbyn would be the clever move.

williamglenn said:

Sean_F said:

surbiton 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.

Which Labour policy would the DUP actually oppose ?

It's which Labour personality.

They'd happily deal with either Gordon Brown or Ed Milliband.

Is Corbyn any more toxic for them than Martin McGuinness? Surely it depends purely on what they want and what leverage they have.

Machine Gun Marty never had the power to destroy the United Kingdom. Corbyn would have.

The thing about a border poll is that once you hold the first one, you begin a seven year cycle of plug circling.

I can't imagine living here during that period.

IanB2 said:

Mortimer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

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...

Not quite. A majority of four remains very tight and the Conservatives will want to pass future money bills.

This administration has a chance of lasting until 2019, up until A50 has expired, and passing a couple of budgets, possibly under a new Conservative PM. It should focus purely upon that. .

I'd suggest David Davis would be the best choice.

I would expect 2-4 by-election defeats in that time. It would be able to do very little from 2019-2022. I think an election held in 2019 for a post-Brexit "mandate" would probably see a Conservative defeat, but not a Labour landslide, and perhaps that'd be the least worst option for the Tories.

The Tories can pull back from 250-260 seats in a single parliament if Corbyn screws up, and if they stay United.

2-4 by election defeats?

Nah. Actuarially that seems very unlikely.

...the Tories don't have the battle hardened resolve of the LibDems.

Hahaha. Self aware much....

JackW said:

nigel4england said:

I would have voted for the Con/LD coalition in both 2015 and 2017 had it been an option

+1

+1. Were it not for the history, a new Tory remainer leader would probably have been able to land that deal in return for single market membership, STV for local government and control of the Environment or Education ministry. But once bitten...

midwinter said:

Mortimer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

jonny83 said:

A close friend wants Dave back, I think his view was fully cemented when he read that Cameron contacted those MP's that lost when May didn't.

I did point out Dave was a class act when Mrs May became PM and she fired a load of Tory staffers, almost with glee.

Remember, she only contacted those Tory MPs who lost after it became public that Dave had contacted them and she hadn't.

She's a f*cking pox on the party and the country.

She needs to fuck off now.

Tory MPs are grown up enough not to need to receive a commiseration text from the leader who was, you know, somewhat busy.

You'd think....

Haven't you given up yet? She's a big red pustule on the arse of the Tory party. The sooner it gets squeezed the better.

As I've said several times, she made a massive mistake and I massively misjudged her popularity.

But all that said, the hurt feelings of a few ex-MPs is media bubble balls.

JackW said:

nigel4england said:

I would have voted for the Con/LD coalition in both 2015 and 2017 had it been an option

+1

+2
I still see it as a moral and strategic blunder for the Tories to have set out deliberately to destroy their coalition partners.

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

This administration has a chance of lasting until 2019, up until A50 has expired, and passing a couple of budgets, possibly under a new Conservative PM. It should focus purely upon that. .

I'd suggest David Davis would be the best choice.

I would expect 2-4 by-election defeats in that time. It would be able to do very little from 2019-2022. I think an election held in 2019 for a post-Brexit "mandate" would probably see a Conservative defeat, but not a Labour landslide, and perhaps that'd be the least worst option for the Tories.

The Tories can pull back from 250-260 seats in a single parliament if Corbyn screws up, and if they stay United.

I think if we presented David Davis to the public then we'd take an even bigger loss.

No, the time of Davis, Hammond, Boris etc... is over. We need new talent to deliver for the next generation of voters just as Dave did in 2005. Kwasi Kwarteng is who I'd love to see get to the top, I think he could win over a lot of the 24-45 year olds that have abandoned us if he is strong on housing and does something over university fees.

The party needs to move on from the current front bench and look at the abundance of talent on the back benches.

Kwasi is a good chap. Should be in the cabinet already.

Oh, and new thread, btw.

NEW THREAD

MaxPB said:

Casino_Royale said:

This administration has a chance of lasting until 2019, up until A50 has expired, and passing a couple of budgets, possibly under a new Conservative PM. It should focus purely upon that. .

I'd suggest David Davis would be the best choice.

I would expect 2-4 by-election defeats in that time. It would be able to do very little from 2019-2022. I think an election held in 2019 for a post-Brexit "mandate" would probably see a Conservative defeat, but not a Labour landslide, and perhaps that'd be the least worst option for the Tories.

The Tories can pull back from 250-260 seats in a single parliament if Corbyn screws up, and if they stay United.

I think if we presented David Davis to the public then we'd take an even bigger loss.

No, the time of Davis, Hammond, Boris etc... is over. We need new talent to deliver for the next generation of voters just as Dave did in 2005. Kwasi Kwarteng is who I'd love to see get to the top, I think he could win over a lot of the 24-45 year olds that have abandoned us if he is strong on housing and does something over university fees.

The party needs to move on from the current front bench and look at the abundance of talent on the back benches.

Cameron's non-reshuffles made it harder to develop talent (as well as giving rise to misleading stats about Theresa May having lasted six years at the Home Office).

RobC said:

Incidentally on the boundary thing given that the UK's population has increased noticeably since 2010 is retaining 650 MPs unreasonable? And as we're brexiting they will actually have far more to do.

Oh there's all sorts of reasons to fudge it. And MPs as turkeys WILL vote for Christmas.

Dadge said:

IanB2 said:

JonCisBack said:

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

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.

They will have their chance to vote against it in the second referendum.

As far as the EU are concerned, Brexit is happening. As far as the Tories are concerned, Brexit is happening. Which begs the question: what on earth is going on? The simple, and perhaps correct, answer is the referendum has turned everything to sh*t.

Things will get much worse if we have another election and Labour win. Most remainers voted Labour and they'll make things extremely difficult for Corbyn. The issue will eff up his administration. He sounds very blase about this, but I hope that in reality behind the scenes they're prioritising finding some way of minimising the damage it would do to the party.

Meanwhile, the mood of the country re Brexit has subtly changed. Yes, most people are content to respect the will of the referendum and see Brexit through, but people's understanding of the consequences of Brexit is much better than it was when they were asked to make the decision. Although in theory "Brexit means Brexit" there are clearly things that people don't want to lose when EU membership ends; lots of different things depending on the group of people: businesses, researchers, students, tourists, shoppers, immigrants, expats, etc. Fulfilling all those requirements is nigh-on impossible and makes being the government of Brexit a fool's errand.

Therefore from a self-interest point of view, staying in power and seeing any kind of Brexit through will alienate many Tory voters - we just don't know which ones yet - so they're bound to lose the following election. Maybe giving the poisoned chalice to Corbyn would be the clever move.

Labour was willing to let the Tories get on with it, give that until last week it looked inevitable, and let them carry the can for the consequences.

Labour won't want to be anywhere near assuming responsibility for actually implementing it, or for the immediate aftermath. The biggest change of all is that Labour is starting to see itself as a potential alternative government, which neither the moderates nor the Corbynites have done previously.

Everything points towards a second referendum, once the shape of the actual Brexit plan becomes clearer. Opposition from both remainers and Brexiteer-ultras should see it fall; the game is simply for the remainder majority in Parliament to ensure that the status quo becomes the alternative option.

midwinter said:

HYUFD said:

midwinter said:

nigel4england said:

midwinter said:

jonny83 said:

A close friend wants Dave back, I think his view was fully cemented when he read that Cameron contacted those MP's that lost when May didn't.

Quite a few of the youngish lads I employ (all non graduates) voted Labour on Thursday in Chichester. Obviously made no difference to the result. Because of May. They'd all voted for Cameron and would have done so again had it been an option. She became voter repellent as the campaign went on.
The Tories have to get rid of her as soon as possible.

I would have voted for the Con/LD coalition in both 2015 and 2017 had it been an option

Yep. Corbyn would have been destroyed.

Would he? Cameron may have held a few more centrists bit he would not have won the UKIP voters May won

He would when the alternative was Corbyn. It's not impossible that TM won most of the Ukip vote but lost all of Daves floating voters and a few others sat on their hands.
Who do you think Corbyn would've preferred to be against out of the pair.
The answer is obvious and tells you all you need to know.

No they would not as the only reason they went for May was because she was implementing the Brexit which Cameron opposed, in the final months of Cameron's premiership Corbyn actually led him in a few polls. Boris is the only leader who may have done better than May