politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A very British coup. A way back for the defeated centre?

That preponderance of moderates in a hung Parliament have their opportunity to take back control from the government.

And do what?

Why Italy won't leave the Euro:

https://medium.com/@DuncanWeldon/the-eurocrisis-redux-or-why-italy-wont-leave-the-euro-b7c64f59f69d

Thank you Alastair. I would disagree with the following:

May and Hammond are not ideologues.

I'm not sure moderate Labour MPs are opposed to Corbyn. What they were worried about was getting thumped at an election.

In the scenario you set out, I think we'd have another election. Jezza would not be standing aside to placate the Lib Dems, that I am certain of.

tlg86 said:

Thank you Alastair. I would disagree with the following:

May and Hammond are not ideologues.

I'm not sure moderate Labour MPs are opposed to Corbyn. What they were worried about was getting thumped at an election.

In the scenario you set out, I think we'd have another election. Jezza would not be standing aside to placate the Lib Dems, that I am certain of.

May is in thrall to the Tory ideologues, they could bring her down at any moment.

philiph said:

Hmmm

Party on 7% dictates terms and leader to a party on 40%. Minority ideologues taking control seems an apt description.

We currently have a party on about .5% dictating terms to the Government. If you don't like it, start campaigning for PR.

Sandpit said:

Wakes up this morning to find the local radio station here interviewing Liam Fox, who it turns out is in the Middle East this week promoting “bilateral trade and investment in a post-Brexit environment”. I guess at least he’s doing something for all his air miles.

Any sign of AW or he safely quartered back at the Deira Sheraton?

F1: contemplated an early Raikkonen (11, each way) bet for Canada, but there's rain potentially in the air. Long way off, of course, but that could make some other drivers better value. Rain would probably suit Mercedes.

Edited extra bit: to clarify, suit Mercedes in that I expect Ferrari to be fastest in the dry. Of the top chaps, Red Bull would be happiest with a soggy weekend.

CarlottaVance said:

Why Italy won't leave the Euro:

https://medium.com/@DuncanWeldon/the-eurocrisis-redux-or-why-italy-wont-leave-the-euro-b7c64f59f69d

He makes some sound points but he is ignoring the target2 exposure of the ECB to Italy. It is E450bn and rising. The debt arises because the ECB accepts collateral from Italian banks, typically Italian bonds. The result is, really for the first time, there is now very significant international exposure to the status of Italian bonds. If Italy defaults the ECB has a massive hole in its balance sheet. It is, once again, the old Keynes observation about you having a problem when you owe your bank a small sum and the bank having a problem when you owe them a very large sum. E450bn is large.

The counterparty to the Italian (and indeed other southern European deficits) on target2 is the massive credits held by Germany in particular. If there is a default they will, at least on paper, suffer a major financial hit.

This works both ways. By refusing to take any more Italian bonds as collateral the ECB has the power to close the Italian banking system almost overnight since they will lose the ability to draw cash from their lender of last resort. By threatening to default on this debt Italy can scare northern countries rigid. A technocratic government will keep to the straight and narrow. Who knows what a government of populists with a series of unsustainable promises to keep might do.

rkrkrk said:

Lab would presumably also need SNP support which is another push towards no Brexit/soft Brexit. I think the replace Corbyn by the back door scenario is unlikely since he has a band of very supportive MPs who would oppose it, and they will likely outnumber the Lib Dems.

It's not the size of rival groups that matters. It's whether a majority can be constructed.

NB the SNP might relish the opportunity to make havoc within Labour too.

edmundintokyo said:

The possibility of doing this seems like a useful negotiating card for the LibDems to have in their back pocket, but if this is before Brexit I'd have thought they'd trade pretty much anything for a re-referendum.

However, if you've only got 14 seats it's quite unlikely the numbers turn out exactly right for you to be kingmaker.

The Lib Dems are not the only party who could pull this stunt. To be honest, it works better for the SNP, who have a vested interest in chaos at Westminster at all times.

This page contains a table of the target2 balances to March: http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/reports.do?node=1000004859

The Italians have a deficit of 442bn. The Germans a surplus of 923bn. Spain has a deficit of 381bn. The Netherlands a surplus of 112bn. These kinds of balances have really only developed since 2008. Before that the balances at the ECB for everyone were very small. This is how the ECB has kept the yields of Euro denominated debt low, even of countries with excess debt like Italy. It has kept the show on the road but is it really sustainable? That is the key to what happens next.

Here's one those Brexit bonuses:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-uk-citizenship-eu-nationality-foreign-nationals-passport-countries-a8369706.html

The cheeky sods are rinsing those that choose the renounce their British citizenship for an extra 50 quid.

AlastairMeeks said:

rkrkrk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rkrkrk said:

Lab would presumably also need SNP support which is another push towards no Brexit/soft Brexit. I think the replace Corbyn by the back door scenario is unlikely since he has a band of very supportive MPs who would oppose it, and they will likely outnumber the Lib Dems.

It's not the size of rival groups that matters. It's whether a majority can be constructed.

NB the SNP might relish the opportunity to make havoc within Labour too.

The size of the rival groups is important to getting to that majority surely?

Why would you expect Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott et al. to vote for a government where Corbyn is not the head rather than just holding out for another election where they could win a majority?

And if the Corbyn supportive MPs are against it - then to get to a majority you'd need another 20-30 MPs. Seems very unlikely you'd get that from the Tories...

Are Corbyn supportive MPs so wedded to their leader (not-a-cult) that they will insist that the chance of a Labour-led government is foregone? I'm sure they would be deeply unhappy, but are they prepared to tell Labour voters that an unpopular leader is an essential component of power?

I think more to the point would Corbyn deny Labour power if he was reasonably happy with the replacement leadership? I think not. Indeed he might just be a little relieved.

This is what Labour did to Chamberlain who remained party leader with Churchill as PM.

philiph said:

ThomasNashe said:

philiph said:

Hmmm

Party on 7% dictates terms and leader to a party on 40%. Minority ideologues taking control seems an apt description.

We currently have a party on about .5% dictating terms to the Government. If you don't like it, start campaigning for PR.

I'm not sure PR is the solution to minority views taking precedence over majority views. PR may be a force behind minority views taking on additional weight. After all the 0.5% have influence through bargaining representation for policy, the main tenant of PR.

I'm not sure all minority views are better or worse than majority views.

If only there were any majority views.

IanB2 said:

What a nonsense our voting system is.

An equally interesting scenario would be a small Labour majority, where the reality within the PLP is that anything the leadership might promote that is radically left wing would be way short of a parliamentary majority, and there would be enough Soubry-equivalents always willing to rebel.

logical_song said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

tlg86 said:

Thank you Alastair. I would disagree with the following:

May and Hammond are not ideologues.

I'm not sure moderate Labour MPs are opposed to Corbyn. What they were worried about was getting thumped at an election.

In the scenario you set out, I think we'd have another election. Jezza would not be standing aside to placate the Lib Dems, that I am certain of.

May is in thrall to the Tory ideologues, they could bring her down at any moment.

Indeed. Poor form from Nicky Morgan and Anna Soubry to be proposing amendments that directly contradict the manifesto they were elected on less than a year ago.

Nicky Morgan and Anna Soubry are not the danger to May and I bet you know which MPs are.

The moderates might sincerely believe they are doing the right thing but they're definitely a threat to May (As are the ERG)

rkrkrk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rkrkrk said:

Lab would presumably also need SNP support which is another push towards no Brexit/soft Brexit. I think the replace Corbyn by the back door scenario is unlikely since he has a band of very supportive MPs who would oppose it, and they will likely outnumber the Lib Dems.

It's not the size of rival groups that matters. It's whether a majority can be constructed.

NB the SNP might relish the opportunity to make havoc within Labour too.

The size of the rival groups is important to getting to that majority surely?

Why would you expect Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott et al. to vote for a government where Corbyn is not the head rather than just holding out for another election where they could win a majority?

And if the Corbyn supportive MPs are against it - then to get to a majority you'd need another 20-30 MPs. Seems very unlikely you'd get that from the Tories...

I wonder if in such circumstances someone like Thornberry could be PM, while Jezza reamained party leader.

In a well hung Parliament, there would have to be an innovative solution.

IanB2 said:

There would be enough Soubry-equivalents always willing to rebel.

There really wouldn't. The awkward squad in Labour who stood up for their principles - their equivalent of Soubry or Clarke - were on the left, and indeed Corbyn was one of them. The Blairites, on the generous assumption that they have principles (the overwhelming evidence is that like their leader themselves, they don't) have one overriding ambition - to get and keep power, because they have a fixed belief that as Good People they are the only ones who will exercise it responsibly.

The irony therefore is that for power, the likes of Mary Creagh would cheerfully pass a law ordering the eating of firstborn children by wild wolves if Corbyn proposed it. The likes of State-sponsored theft of politically attractive companies or restrictions on the press (both of which they think of as Good Things anyway) they will wave through without a murmur.

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

There would be enough Soubry-equivalents always willing to rebel.

There really wouldn't. The awkward squad in Labour who stood up for their principles - their equivalent of Soubry or Clarke - were on the left, and indeed Corbyn was one of them. The Blairites, on the generous assumption that they have principles (the overwhelming evidence is that like their leader themselves, they don't) have one overriding ambition - to get and keep power, because they have a fixed belief that as Good People they are the only ones who will exercise it responsibly.

The irony therefore is that for power, the likes of Mary Creagh would cheerfully pass a law ordering the eating of firstborn children by wild wolves if Corbyn proposed it. The likes of State-sponsored theft of politically attractive companies or restrictions on the press (both of which they think of as Good Things anyway) they will wave through without a murmur.

I take your point - my personal experience of so-called moderate Labour politicians is that they do indeed have few principles that they will not sell for personal and party ambition. Nevertheless the personal animosities within Labour are already strong (and won't be entirely resolved by a victory), and the lack of prospective career advancement under the left will leave a fair few looking to position themselves for the main chance.

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

There would be enough Soubry-equivalents always willing to rebel.

There really wouldn't. The awkward squad in Labour who stood up for their principles - their equivalent of Soubry or Clarke - were on the left, and indeed Corbyn was one of them. The Blairites, on the generous assumption that they have principles (the overwhelming evidence is that like their leader themselves, they don't) have one overriding ambition - to get and keep power, because they have a fixed belief that as Good People they are the only ones who will exercise it responsibly.

The irony therefore is that for power, the likes of Mary Creagh would cheerfully pass a law ordering the eating of firstborn children by wild wolves if Corbyn proposed it. The likes of State-sponsored theft of politically attractive companies or restrictions on the press (both of which they think of as Good Things anyway) they will wave through without a murmur.

Surely most people go into politics to acquire the ability to exercise power. The newly elected District Councillor doesn’t seriously feel as though they have the key to No 10 in their pack, as the old saying goes, but somewhere, deep in their innermost fantasies, that feeling is there.
The likes of Corbyn or JRM, who find themselves in what appear to be safe seats exercise that power by being, in their minds, the custodians of the True Faith.

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

There would be enough Soubry-equivalents always willing to rebel.

There really wouldn't. The awkward squad in Labour who stood up for their principles - their equivalent of Soubry or Clarke - were on the left, and indeed Corbyn was one of them. The Blairites, on the generous assumption that they have principles (the overwhelming evidence is that like their leader themselves, they don't) have one overriding ambition - to get and keep power, because they have a fixed belief that as Good People they are the only ones who will exercise it responsibly.

The irony therefore is that for power, the likes of Mary Creagh would cheerfully pass a law ordering the eating of firstborn children by wild wolves if Corbyn proposed it. The likes of State-sponsored theft of politically attractive companies or restrictions on the press (both of which they think of as Good Things anyway) they will wave through without a murmur.

I take your point - my personal experience of so-called moderate Labour politicians is that they do indeed have few principles that they will not sell for personal and party ambition. Nevertheless the personal animosities within Labour are already strong (and won't be entirely resolved by a victory), and the lack of prospective career advancement under the left will leave a fair few looking to position themselves for the main chance.

Like Owen Smith Jones ?

Pulpstar said:

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

IanB2 said:

There would be enough Soubry-equivalents always willing to rebel.

There really wouldn't. The awkward squad in Labour who stood up for their principles - their equivalent of Soubry or Clarke - were on the left, and indeed Corbyn was one of them. The Blairites, on the generous assumption that they have principles (the overwhelming evidence is that like their leader themselves, they don't) have one overriding ambition - to get and keep power, because they have a fixed belief that as Good People they are the only ones who will exercise it responsibly.

The irony therefore is that for power, the likes of Mary Creagh would cheerfully pass a law ordering the eating of firstborn children by wild wolves if Corbyn proposed it. The likes of State-sponsored theft of politically attractive companies or restrictions on the press (both of which they think of as Good Things anyway) they will wave through without a murmur.

I take your point - my personal experience of so-called moderate Labour politicians is that they do indeed have few principles that they will not sell for personal and party ambition. Nevertheless the personal animosities within Labour are already strong (and won't be entirely resolved by a victory), and the lack of prospective career advancement under the left will leave a fair few looking to position themselves for the main chance.

Like Owen Smith Jones ?

Alas, Smith and Jones...

Foxy said:

rkrkrk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rkrkrk said:

Lab would presumably also need SNP support which is another push towards no Brexit/soft Brexit. I think the replace Corbyn by the back door scenario is unlikely since he has a band of very supportive MPs who would oppose it, and they will likely outnumber the Lib Dems.

It's not the size of rival groups that matters. It's whether a majority can be constructed.

NB the SNP might relish the opportunity to make havoc within Labour too.

The size of the rival groups is important to getting to that majority surely?

Why would you expect Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott et al. to vote for a government where Corbyn is not the head rather than just holding out for another election where they could win a majority?

And if the Corbyn supportive MPs are against it - then to get to a majority you'd need another 20-30 MPs. Seems very unlikely you'd get that from the Tories...

I wonder if in such circumstances someone like Thornberry could be PM, while Jezza reamained party leader.

In a well hung Parliament, there would have to be an innovative solution.

A well hung Parliament, such as the numbers in the header, would be absolutely chaos. The DUP would probably line up behind the Tories, with the Greens and maybe PC behind Labour. The LDs will not want to sign anything after their previous experience with a formal coalition, and the SNP will probably agree to prop up Labour in theory but then do their own thing in practice to add to the chaos.

The reality would probably be another election a few months down the line, with whichever of the main parties isn’t leading the government having a change of leader in the interim.

DavidL said:

This page contains a table of the target2 balances to March: http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/reports.do?node=1000004859

The Italians have a deficit of 442bn. The Germans a surplus of 923bn. Spain has a deficit of 381bn. The Netherlands a surplus of 112bn. These kinds of balances have really only developed since 2008. Before that the balances at the ECB for everyone were very small. This is how the ECB has kept the yields of Euro denominated debt low, even of countries with excess debt like Italy. It has kept the show on the road but is it really sustainable? That is the key to what happens next.

Leave the EMU, renominate all debt back to Lira. Inflate away the debt.

Enjoy the second instalment of Radio Morris Dancer:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/ricciardo-where-to-in-2019.html

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

This page contains a table of the target2 balances to March: http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/reports.do?node=1000004859

The Italians have a deficit of 442bn. The Germans a surplus of 923bn. Spain has a deficit of 381bn. The Netherlands a surplus of 112bn. These kinds of balances have really only developed since 2008. Before that the balances at the ECB for everyone were very small. This is how the ECB has kept the yields of Euro denominated debt low, even of countries with excess debt like Italy. It has kept the show on the road but is it really sustainable? That is the key to what happens next.

Leave the EMU, renominate all debt back to Lira. Inflate away the debt.

Simple solutions with no regard to the consequences - surely you must have voted Brexit?

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

O/t. Mioney talks. Yingluck Shinawatra, the on-the-run ex PM of Thailand has been granted a 10 year visitor visa to UK, according to reports in the ex-pat press. She apparently has a passport from an unnamed EU country. Meanwhile Roman Abramovitch is apparently getting an Israeli passport, which will enable him to come and go to and from UK without let or hindrance.

If she has a passport from an EU country, why would she need a visa?

My misreading: unnamed European country, not necessarily EU.

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/henrikenderlein/status/1001357844963299329

Non-trivial when your debt is over two trillion Euros...

stand by for Project Fear mark 2

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

O/t. Mioney talks. Yingluck Shinawatra, the on-the-run ex PM of Thailand has been granted a 10 year visitor visa to UK, according to reports in the ex-pat press. She apparently has a passport from an unnamed EU country. Meanwhile Roman Abramovitch is apparently getting an Israeli passport, which will enable him to come and go to and from UK without let or hindrance.

If she has a passport from an EU country, why would she need a visa?

My misreading: unnamed European country, not necessarily EU.

Thank you.

So we did have a choice and we funked it. At the same time, we are bearing down on hundreds of thousands of people whose status is uncertain although they cause no damage to anyone.

Great. What could possibly go wrong?

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

DavidL said:

This page contains a table of the target2 balances to March: http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/reports.do?node=1000004859

The Italians have a deficit of 442bn. The Germans a surplus of 923bn. Spain has a deficit of 381bn. The Netherlands a surplus of 112bn. These kinds of balances have really only developed since 2008. Before that the balances at the ECB for everyone were very small. This is how the ECB has kept the yields of Euro denominated debt low, even of countries with excess debt like Italy. It has kept the show on the road but is it really sustainable? That is the key to what happens next.

Leave the EMU, renominate all debt back to Lira. Inflate away the debt.

Is going to be the only way to do it, if the ECB take the same approach they did with Greece.

The problem is that the more talk there is about it, the more Italians will be emptying their bank accounts - making the problem worse. When people don’t have faith in the future of their currency or the banking system in their country, the result is piles of Benjamins literally kept under the mattress.

I suspect its Euro's under the mattress but I wouldn't have them in an Italian bank account.

Equally hasn't ever model for Euro breakup shown that it is better for the Netherlands and Germany to leave as it will have less impact than Italy (or co) leaving.

tlg86 said:

Thank you Alastair. I would disagree with the following:

May and Hammond are not ideologues.

I'm not sure moderate Labour MPs are opposed to Corbyn. What they were worried about was getting thumped at an election.

In the scenario you set out, I think we'd have another election. Jezza would not be standing aside to placate the Lib Dems, that I am certain of.

Agreed. In particular most lab mps seem perfectly content with corbyn and the direction of the party, outside of some issues on foreign affairs and anti semitism.

Mr. Sandpit, thanks, and I agree.

On blogspot commenting, it works ok for e (via PC). You could try signing into a Google account, though I suspect the same problem might occur. Not sure why. It's annoying though, I rather like reading comments (I do go back to old articles sometimes when looking ahead to a race, so having comments there is useful for a long while).

CarlottaVance said:

Alanbrooke said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/henrikenderlein/status/1001357844963299329

Non-trivial when your debt is over two trillion Euros...

stand by for Project Fear mark 2

We're onto 3 now, surely?

Only one has worked so far....

The plan must be to get Matterella to delay elections as long as possible so the finance markets can scare the voters. Then it's wallets versus sovereignty as the establishments best chance.

Sound familiar ?

Technically of course May was the moderate candidate in 2016 with Leadsom the hard Brexiteer,so while Corbyn was clearly the most left-wing of the Labour leadership candidates in 2016 unless say Mogg or Gove or Boris is elected Tory leader after May it cannot be said both parties have completely abandoned the 'centre.' Though if by the 'centre' we mean pro EU, centrist economics the Leave victory in the EU referendum and the 40% Corbyn Labour got at the general election suggests the centre currently represents a pretty small pool.

If the LDs do hold the balance of power after the next general election it is also very unlikely the Labour membership would agree to remove Corbyn. So if the LDs then abstained in a confidence vote and Labour + nationalists + Greens > Tories + DUP then Corbyn would become PM in all likelihood even though the Tories have won most seats, in post-war British politics an unprecedented scenario. The LDs would then take up a vote by vote position on each bill the new government put forward so in practice Corbyn would though still be reliant on the LDs to get any legislation through the Commons.

Alanbrooke said:

While Italy raises temperatures in Europe TMerkel is embroiled in an immigration scandal of her own making which now looks like its heading for a full parliamentary investigation

synopsis

-Angie opens borders in 2015
- Immigration office overwhelmed by cases
- Angie says wave them through delays are making us look bad
- so they do and ignore all procedures
- bit of bribery thrown in to make it all more scandalous

https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article176765501/BAMF-Krise-Das-Kanzleramt-traegt-die-Verantwortung.html

Ia Angie taking responsibility for any crimes committed by people who shouldn't have been allowed in ?

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rkrkrk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rkrkrk said:

Lab would presumably also need SNP support which is another push towards no Brexit/soft Brexit. I think the replace Corbyn by the back door scenario is unlikely since he has a band of very supportive MPs who would oppose it, and they will likely outnumber the Lib Dems.

It's not the size of rival groups that matters. It's whether a majority can be constructed.

NB the SNP might relish the opportunity to make havoc within Labour too.

The size of the rival groups is important to getting to that majority surely?

Why would you expect Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott et al. to vote for a government where Corbyn is not the head rather than just holding out for another election where they could win a majority?

And if the Corbyn supportive MPs are against it - then to get to a majority you'd need another 20-30 MPs. Seems very unlikely you'd get that from the Tories...

Are Corbyn supportive MPs so wedded to their leader (not-a-cult) that they will insist that the chance of a Labour-led government is foregone? I'm sure they would be deeply unhappy, but are they prepared to tell Labour voters that an unpopular leader is an essential component of power?

I think more to the point would Corbyn deny Labour power if he was reasonably happy with the replacement leadership? I think not. Indeed he might just be a little relieved.

It depends on the substitute. He wouldn't stand aside for Chuka Umunna. He might for Lisa Nandy.

If he kept the Labour leadership, he might content himself with using party levers of power.

I very much doubt Corbyn would stand aside and even if he did Labour members choose his replacement which could equally be McDonnnell and I doubt Corbyn would oppose any bid by him

another_richard said:

Alanbrooke said:

While Italy raises temperatures in Europe TMerkel is embroiled in an immigration scandal of her own making which now looks like its heading for a full parliamentary investigation

synopsis

-Angie opens borders in 2015
- Immigration office overwhelmed by cases
- Angie says wave them through delays are making us look bad
- so they do and ignore all procedures
- bit of bribery thrown in to make it all more scandalous

https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article176765501/BAMF-Krise-Das-Kanzleramt-traegt-die-Verantwortung.html

Ia Angie taking responsibility for any crimes committed by people who shouldn't have been allowed in ?

lol

what do you think ?

her biggest exposure on this is vetting procedures were ignored. So as well as letting migrnts who were clearly economic through, there has be no checking of people with dubious pasts. Chuck in that officials were allegedly bribed to move people further up the queue and Merkel has just blown a huge hole in Europe's immigration controls. Presumably anyone waived through can now just turn up in an EU country of their choice.

AlastairMeeks said:

rkrkrk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rkrkrk said:

Lab would presumably also need SNP support which is another push towards no Brexit/soft Brexit. I think the replace Corbyn by the back door scenario is unlikely since he has a band of very supportive MPs who would oppose it, and they will likely outnumber the Lib Dems.

It's not the size of rival groups that matters. It's whether a majority can be constructed.

NB the SNP might relish the opportunity to make havoc within Labour too.

The size of the rival groups is important to getting to that majority surely?

Why would you expect Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott et al. to vote for a government where Corbyn is not the head rather than just holding out for another election where they could win a majority?

And if the Corbyn supportive MPs are against it - then to get to a majority you'd need another 20-30 MPs. Seems very unlikely you'd get that from the Tories...

Are Corbyn supportive MPs so wedded to their leader (not-a-cult) that they will insist that the chance of a Labour-led government is foregone? I'm sure they would be deeply unhappy, but are they prepared to tell Labour voters that an unpopular leader is an essential component of power?

Perhaps you're right. It would depend who the new leader was I suppose.
I could imagine that Corbyn would step aside if he believed the project would continue.

IanB2 said:

rkrkrk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rkrkrk said:

Lab would presumably also need SNP support which is another push towards no Brexit/soft Brexit. I think the replace Corbyn by the back door scenario is unlikely since he has a band of very supportive MPs who would oppose it, and they will likely outnumber the Lib Dems.

It's not the size of rival groups that matters. It's whether a majority can be constructed.

NB the SNP might relish the opportunity to make havoc within Labour too.

The size of the rival groups is important to getting to that majority surely?

Why would you expect Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott et al. to vote for a government where Corbyn is not the head rather than just holding out for another election where they could win a majority?

And if the Corbyn supportive MPs are against it - then to get to a majority you'd need another 20-30 MPs. Seems very unlikely you'd get that from the Tories...

Labour having lost four elections in a row, and having gone nowhere in the latest one; are they really going to gamble on fifth time lucky? Also remember the intense pressure from the media, business and the financial markets, which was a key driver for getting the 2010 coalition sorted so quickly.

If they keep making gains - they might well gamble!
I don't think Corbyn would be swayed by intense pressure from the media, business and financial markets. [As an aside, given how long other countries seem to go without govts, I'm not sure he should be swayed all that much]

eek said:

Sandpit said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Enjoy the second instalment of Radio Morris Dancer:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/ricciardo-where-to-in-2019.html

Good analysis, although your site is still eating comments from my iPad with either the Name/url or Anonymous options. If I were Helmut Marko, I’d be asking Mr Mateschitz to sign the big cheque while their man is still high from the Monaco weekend - before NikI Lauda and Toto Wolff can get to him!

As I commented on yesterday the Red Bull risk is their switch to a Honda Engine. As Riccardo is. I would be waiting until the new engine (for Canada) is seen in action.

Agreed. They’re desperate to ditch Renault, but are rightly worried about going all in with Honda if there’s not a big improvement in the Japanese engines. IMO I can’t see much change in the relative performance of the various engines for the next couple of years, ahead of the next big regulation change in 2021 - in which case Daniel will be better off spending 2019 and 2020 in a Mercedes if he wants a serious shot at a drivers’ title.

rkrkrk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rkrkrk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rkrkrk said:

Lab would presumably also need SNP support which is another push towards no Brexit/soft Brexit. I think the replace Corbyn by the back door scenario is unlikely since he has a band of very supportive MPs who would oppose it, and they will likely outnumber the Lib Dems.

It's not the size of rival groups that matters. It's whether a majority can be constructed.

NB the SNP might relish the opportunity to make havoc within Labour too.

The size of the rival groups is important to getting to that majority surely?

Why would you expect Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott et al. to vote for a government where Corbyn is not the head rather than just holding out for another election where they could win a majority?

And if the Corbyn supportive MPs are against it - then to get to a majority you'd need another 20-30 MPs. Seems very unlikely you'd get that from the Tories...

Are Corbyn supportive MPs so wedded to their leader (not-a-cult) that they will insist that the chance of a Labour-led government is foregone? I'm sure they would be deeply unhappy, but are they prepared to tell Labour voters that an unpopular leader is an essential component of power?

Perhaps you're right. It would depend who the new leader was I suppose.
I could imagine that Corbyn would step aside if he believed the project would continue.

He might refuse to step aside for anyone but McDonnell and remember any new leader has to get approved by the Labour membership

another_richard said:

Morris_Dancer said:

As a sleepy side, the news did cover white farms in South Africa having parts claimed by blacks. The segment did raise the possibility of a Zimbabwe-style situation recurring (although they asked a black farmer about this, which is a bit like asking Captain Chubbychops if cake is a good thing), but it was bizarre that they didn't mention the serious violence being committed against white farmers.

It does seem the ANC is going to put through legislation to confiscate white farmland.

Perhaps the 'food is rotting in the fields' crowd will suggest recruiting South African farmers for this country.

English speaking, hard working, skilled and with high employment rates:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/employmentbycountryofbirthandnationalityemp06

C'mon, let the cons have a go first.
™Cons

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, Hamilton has yet to sign a new deal. May give him a little more leverage, but I think Ricciardo's worth signing even so. The pair of them would be the best on the grid.

Yes, undoubtedly.

But would Hamilton, Schumacher-style, threaten to flounce if his team mate turned out to be another Alonso or Rosberg?

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

This page contains a table of the target2 balances to March: http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/reports.do?node=1000004859

The Italians have a deficit of 442bn. The Germans a surplus of 923bn. Spain has a deficit of 381bn. The Netherlands a surplus of 112bn. These kinds of balances have really only developed since 2008. Before that the balances at the ECB for everyone were very small. This is how the ECB has kept the yields of Euro denominated debt low, even of countries with excess debt like Italy. It has kept the show on the road but is it really sustainable? That is the key to what happens next.

So what happens when the next financial crisis happens ?

The next recession is going to be brutal in most developed countries, a lot of governments still haven’t recovered from the last crisis a decade ago. In the UK the govt is still borrowing more than £100,000,000 a day despite all the complaints of “austerity” and poor services. With interest rates still on the floor the only lever left is going to be serious cuts in welfare spending, as were seen in Ireland in 2009.

another_richard said:

DavidL said:

This page contains a table of the target2 balances to March: http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/reports.do?node=1000004859

The Italians have a deficit of 442bn. The Germans a surplus of 923bn. Spain has a deficit of 381bn. The Netherlands a surplus of 112bn. These kinds of balances have really only developed since 2008. Before that the balances at the ECB for everyone were very small. This is how the ECB has kept the yields of Euro denominated debt low, even of countries with excess debt like Italy. It has kept the show on the road but is it really sustainable? That is the key to what happens next.

So what happens when the next financial crisis happens ?

Who knows? We are not in Kansas anymore. Once "respectable" governments like the UK can rig their gilt market by QE and buying up their own bonds in huge quantities default becomes almost impossible for a country or bloc with a lender of last resort and a vaguely credible currency.

The populist parties have asked for £250bn of this debt to be "cancelled". That would require the cancellation of similar levels of credits, unless the ECB simply prints the lost money to pay the Germans etc.

Alternatively, the Germans may seek to regain control of the ECB and impose some fiscal discipline thereby creating a default situation. They cannot be happy with this.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Sandpit, Hamilton has yet to sign a new deal. May give him a little more leverage, but I think Ricciardo's worth signing even so. The pair of them would be the best on the grid.

Agreed. The only move Lewis could countenance would be to Ferrari - so as to win the title with three different teams. Vettel ain’t going to let that happen (as much as we’d all love to see Prost v Senna II) so he’ll be staying put for the next couple of years at Mercedes. They’re just dotting the Is and crossing the Ts on Hamilton’s new contract now.

I don’t think Lewis will care too much about who’s his team mate, he’s confident he can beat anyone - unlike Vettel, who was already beaten by Ricciardo when they were team mates before.

On topic, it would be very strange that a leader increasing his seat numbers would be challenged for his position. Especially that labour far left see this as their chance to fundamentally change the country and that they wouldn't want to see this watered down.

Ultimately, what I think the nationalists would like is independence – with the Barnett formula.

http://www.these-islands.co.uk/publications/i298/colin_kidd_at_policy_exchange.aspx