politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay caves in to the Brexit Taliban over Chequers plan

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Yorkcity said:

kle4 said:

Oh May, what is the point of finally taking a stand, recognising you cannot get all sides to agree, only to alter position anyway?

Never a truer word spoken.

I thought she had at least tried to lead a week ago at Chequers.

Now she has pissed of nearly everyone .

Time for a new leader to step forward , in the countries interest.

But who and how

The unity candidate of course. The man of destiny. The power that is.

Boris

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1018964398273126400

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Yorkcity said:

kle4 said:

Oh May, what is the point of finally taking a stand, recognising you cannot get all sides to agree, only to alter position anyway?

Never a truer word spoken.

I thought she had at least tried to lead a week ago at Chequers.

Now she has pissed of nearly everyone .

Time for a new leader to step forward , in the countries interest.

But who and how

The unity candidate of course. The man of destiny. The power that is.

Boris

The reported increase in membership makes that more likely unfortunately

chloe said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Yorkcity said:

kle4 said:

Oh May, what is the point of finally taking a stand, recognising you cannot get all sides to agree, only to alter position anyway?

Never a truer word spoken.

I thought she had at least tried to lead a week ago at Chequers.

Now she has pissed of nearly everyone .

Time for a new leader to step forward , in the countries interest.

But who and how

The unity candidate of course. The man of destiny. The power that is.

Boris

Boris can’t unite anybody.

Au contraire. He's united everyone.

Yorkcity said:

kle4 said:

Oh May, what is the point of finally taking a stand, recognising you cannot get all sides to agree, only to alter position anyway?

Never a truer word spoken.

I thought she had at least tried to lead a week ago at Chequers.

Now she has pissed of nearly everyone .

Time for a new leader to step forward , in the countries interest.

But that won't help either. Neither faction has the backing of the other, so at best would be slightly less indecisive, because they would still be fundamentally weak.

I guess it's time to see what the EU think, but if they would have had trouble before with it they will even more so now. May can then either go with no deal, or step aside for someone who will, since it will be all that is left for us unfortunately.

UK will leave the EU VAT area.

Question will be whether administratively we leave it

chloe said:

numbertwelve said:

chloe said:

numbertwelve said:

This goes to show why the Article 50 process (deliberately, perhaps?) is flawed.

Really there should be two years for negotiation followed by a year of legislative implementation. A government could get its negotiations hammered out before putting the legislation on the table to implement the deal. As it is we have a moving feast of Commons votes dictating in some ways the governments negotiating position.

I suspect it’s not designed that way to make it even harder to leave. Of course we could have spent the pre-Article 50 phase trying to persuade the European Parliament to extend the period, but then I suspect there wouldn’t have been consensus. Would be interesting in future to see if the government took soundings though (I’m guessing no).

We could have invoked Article 50 when we knew what we wanted from the negotiations.

Well yes, but even then we couldn’t guarantee we’d get what we wanted.

Whichever way you look at it, it’s clear that it wasn’t drafted with practicality in mind. Which given the state of mind of the European Project isn’t exactly a surprise.

Of course, but the EU don’t expect countries to go rogue rather than work to reform from within, with alliances and compromises.

And that’s a fundamental flaw in the EUs thinking. There was always a chance someone would leave at some point. You can’t guarantee the future. Which is presumably why they put article 50 in the treaty in the first place. But didn’t really think through the consequences of someone actually using it.

The worst of both worlds.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1018972400740945923

TheWhiteRabbit said:

I'm a VAT lawyer and I no longer know what the gov't position is

Means I'll need to do my VAT reclaim for our German Trade show well before 29th March xD

This does strike me a little of the old truth that one's strength can often end up being ones weakness as well. Lack of ideological fervour, willingness to compromise and avoid confrontation, they can all be very handy in a job which requires careful management and a practical approach, but stick to that when things need doing now, and pissing off a lot of people is inevitable, and the attempt to keep it all together just becomes sad to watch really.

https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1018972497369280512

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

I'm a VAT lawyer and I no longer know what the gov't position is

Means I'll need to do my VAT reclaim for our German Trade show well before 29th March xD

If that's a Directive claim, I think so...

Everything else will be covered by the transition

kle4 said:

It's a shame they don't seem to have a strategy

Does anyone else?

kle4 said:

Gardenwalker said:

The ball is now in the EU’s court and we must wait for October.

Quite reasonably I would think they will say what is the point in agreeing to any of your proposals, they'll probably change in a week?

No deal then

The three/four Labour rebels voting in favour of the ERG saw it through!!

Corbyn yet again letting the side down

Not many patriots left in the parliamentary Conservative party.

Heidi Allen
Guto Bebb
Richard Benyon
Ken Clarke
Jonathan Djanogly
Dominic Grieve
Stephen Hammond
Philip Lee
Nicky Morgan
Bob Neill
Mark Pawsey
Antoinette Sandbach
Anna Soubry
Sarah Wollaston

14 tories who rebelled

Heidi Allen
Guto Bebb
Rochard Benyon
Ken Clarke
Jonathan Djanogly
Domonic Grieve
Stephen Hammond
Phillip Lee
Nicky Morgan
Robert Neill
Mark Pawsey
Antoinette Sandbach
Anna Soubry
Sarah Wollaston

CarlottaVance said:

kle4 said:

It's a shame they don't seem to have a strategy

Does anyone else?

JRM and co do - prevent any other option from being viable and win by default.

Corbyn has one - say and do nothing firm on Brexit, however irresponsible that is (the much praised 'masterly inactivity' strategy), so that Labour will not be in the public eye on it, and when government collapses, Labour will win by default

May seemed to have one, even if it looked unlikely to succeed. But apparently it is just enough to survive from vote to vote, even if it makes an already difficult sell incomprehensible apparently.

I believed at least she had sincerely chosen a path, but given no one seems to believe the amendments are compatible with what she stated previously, I don't think her deal proposal was sincere after all.

ralphmalph said:

14 tories who rebelled

Heidi Allen
Guto Bebb
Rochard Benyon
Ken Clarke
Jonathan Djanogly
Domonic Grieve
Stephen Hammond
Phillip Lee
Nicky Morgan
Robert Neill
Mark Pawsey
Antoinette Sandbach
Anna Soubry
Sarah Wollaston

And the ERG rebels would be 100 plus

https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1018974853339205632

Just seen the list of Tory rebels on the ERG amendment. Looks like Justine Greening voted with the government, on the very day she called for a 2nd referendum?! God the Tory remainers are absolutely cr*p at getting the numbers together aren't they.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

The three/four Labour rebels voting in favour of the ERG saw it through!!

Corbyn yet again letting the side down

I really don't think Corbyn can be blamed for the fact 1-2% of his party rebel sometimes. Given how much so many of his MPs don't like him, that it is not higher more often is a surprise, but some rebels are surely inevitable.

Gardenwalker said:

I see there is an increasing mood among some a Remainers for a no deal Brexit, because there is no other way for the country to understand the real impact of their vote.

I think this is dangerous.

Chaos, once unleashed, never seems to revert to calm. Remember the idea that Corbyn would be a flash in the pan?

It is very risky, to be sure, and rather flippant about those risks. It's all very well if they console themselves that it still us leavers' fault in the end, but no deal was not inevitable, and unless they genuinely think the May deal would be bad or not democratic somehow, saying no to it for other reasons seems tactically unwise if nothing else.

It is astonishing that the Labour Party presumes that it is more qualified than all of the above and, in particular, the Jewish community, to define antisemitism.

https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1018975013549039616

Flashback. Remember when May refused to admit such a thing as transition, calling it an “Implementation period”?

chloe said:

Jonathan said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Yorkcity said:

kle4 said:

Oh May, what is the point of finally taking a stand, recognising you cannot get all sides to agree, only to alter position anyway?

Never a truer word spoken.

I thought she had at least tried to lead a week ago at Chequers.

Now she has pissed of nearly everyone .

Time for a new leader to step forward , in the countries interest.

But who and how

The unity candidate of course. The man of destiny. The power that is.

Boris

Boris can’t unite anybody.

Nor did Trump, he still won

Jonathan said:

Cyclefree said:

Gardenwalker said:

I see there is an increasing mood among some a Remainers for a no deal Brexit, because there is no other way for the country to understand the real impact of their vote.

I think this is dangerous.

Chaos, once unleashed, never seems to revert to calm. Remember the idea that Corbyn would be a flash in the pan?

Agreed.

A chaotic Brexit followed by Corbyn would be a grade "A*" fucking disaster .......

What, in God's name, must the EU be thinking of us.

Are any negotiations even planned?

I used to think JRM was an eccentric polite MP with some very old-fashioned views. Now I am beginning to loathe him. He and his band are being really quite unpatriotic and undemocratic in seeking to assume that only their view of what Brexit means is permissible and seeking to impose it in a way which makes it more likely that we end up with no deal, with all the potential harm that could lead to, or Remain, which is contrary to the referendum result (even though at present that seems to me to be preferable since I very much doubt anyone voting for Leave voted for chaos).

It’s hard to see a way back for May, this government and probably us too.

Agreed. I put No deal at 70% chance earlier (purely on my gut). I'd put it at about 80% now.

There's too much that needs to go right for a deal to occur now, and the optimism of those assuming a governmental and EU fudge can undo the political positioning that has occurred strikes me as not based in reality.

Pulpstar said:

Does this VAT amendment mean the end of boxes 8 and 9 ?
& intrastat ?
& EC Sales ?</blockquote If no one knows we really are without a paddle in uncharted sewerage.

passes to 3rd reading

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ralphmalph said:

14 tories who rebelled

Heidi Allen
Guto Bebb
Rochard Benyon
Ken Clarke
Jonathan Djanogly
Domonic Grieve
Stephen Hammond
Phillip Lee
Nicky Morgan
Robert Neill
Mark Pawsey
Antoinette Sandbach
Anna Soubry
Sarah Wollaston

And the ERG rebels would be 100 plus

That is the tip of the iceberg of potential Remain rebels. While May is leading they will keep their powder dry.

Sometimes it feels like May is successfully playing a very difficult video game where the only aim is personal survival.

Gardenwalker said:

These votes tonight are all theatre.
Yes, it incenses Remainers that May is so willing to cave to the ERG, but if they don’t like it they can vote against - or even resign, as Bebb has.

I don’t think they change Chequers in any meaningful sense.

The ball is now in the EU’s court and we must wait for October.

It’s true though the the odds of both no Brexit and no deal have risen in the last week, largely as a result of the Davis and Johnson resignations.

Meanwhile, businesses will continue making plans to transfer investment and people away from Britain.

Yep - this is the key point. The Tories are telling business loud and clear that No Deal is coming. The Tories will own the consequences of that. Jeremy Corbyn will be delighted. Chequers could have put him on the back foot. Now he is home free.

Dadge said:

Sometimes it feels like May is successfully playing a very difficult video game where the only aim is personal survival.

I get the impression that if she goes it'll be because she decides herself that she doesn't want to carry on, not because she's been forced out by anyone else.

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1018976198150541312

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

These votes tonight are all theatre.
Yes, it incenses Remainers that May is so willing to cave to the ERG, but if they don’t like it they can vote against - or even resign, as Bebb has.

I don’t think they change Chequers in any meaningful sense.

The ball is now in the EU’s court and we must wait for October.

It’s true though the the odds of both no Brexit and no deal have risen in the last week, largely as a result of the Davis and Johnson resignations.

Meanwhile, businesses will continue making plans to transfer investment and people away from Britain.

Yep - this is the key point. The Tories are telling business loud and clear that No Deal is coming. The Tories will own the consequences of that. Jeremy Corbyn will be delighted. Chequers could have put him on the back foot. Now he is home free.

On current polls the only way the Tories win the next election is hard Brexit, if it is soft Brexit based on the Chequers Deal Corbyn will win because of Tory defections to UKIP

Jonathan said:

Cyclefree said:

Gardenwalker said:

I see there is an increasing mood among some a Remainers for a no deal Brexit, because there is no other way for the country to understand the real impact of their vote.

I think this is dangerous.

Chaos, once unleashed, never seems to revert to calm. Remember the idea that Corbyn would be a flash in the pan?

Agreed.

A chaotic Brexit followed by Corbyn would be a grade "A*" fucking disaster .......

What, in God's name, must the EU be thinking of us.

Are any negotiations even planned?

I used to think JRM was an eccentric polite MP with some very old-fashioned views. Now I am beginning to loathe him. He and his band are being really quite unpatriotic and undemocratic in seeking to assume that only their view of what Brexit means is permissible and seeking to impose it in a way which makes it more likely that we end up with no deal, with all the potential harm that could lead to, or Remain, which is contrary to the referendum result (even though at present that seems to me to be preferable since I very much doubt anyone voting for Leave voted for chaos).

It’s hard to see a way back for May, this government and probably us too.

Ask the EU for a pause on Article 50 while we and they plan for an orderly no deal exit on WTO terms, which is in both our interests.

Or go back to Parliament and say that it is impossible to come up with a proposal which Parliament will back which can also be agreed with the EU and that therefore - in order to avoid a disorderly crash out - she is going to cancel Article 50, pass a one line Act to that effect and let the ECJ decide whether this is legally permissible.

If Parliament won't support this resign and see if someone else can command a majority and sort out the clusterfuck.

Then get on a plane (while they can still fly) and piss off somewhere very far away where the internet and telephone lines work intermittently if at all.

Honestly, I am no supporter of Corbyn (I would consider it a day of shame if he were to become Britain's PM) but if the Tories can't get their act together then let Labour see what they can do to sort out Brexit with the EU. They might surprise us all.

numbertwelve said:

chloe said:

We could have invoked Article 50 when we knew what we wanted from the negotiations.

Well yes, but even then we couldn’t guarantee we’d get what we wanted.

Whichever way you look at it, it’s clear that it wasn’t drafted with practicality in mind. Which given the state of mind of the European Project isn’t exactly a surprise.

Here's something I simply do not understand. Cameron and May were both sensible enough to avoid triggering Article 50 immediately after the referendum, because they knew some preparation time would be needed. There were some voices who wanted it triggered immediately, presumably to prevent a "betrayal", but that would clearly have been disastrous. On the other hand, the basic shape of the EU's offer, or set of plausible offers, was pretty clear from the outset. RCS points out that commission "red-lines flowchart" but it didn't contain anything that couldn't have been logically discerned.

So why did she not use that time to sort out the UK government position and get most of the ducks in a row? The fact that it's taken this long to decide what the cabinet want re customs, for example, indicates a lot of basic stuff was being left very late.

But why? May could decide when to set the trigger. If it would take more time to arrange the position, she could have taken it. Did she trigger prematurely because she thought that the EU's position was actually quite opaque and the options would only become clear once the talking had started? Did she know how hard it would be to reach cabinet agreement so didn't want to waste time and political capital discussing hypotheticals ("what if the EU don't agree to give us X" etc), and thought that her own control over the negotiations would let her impose her will when required once the process had started? Did she think that they had lined the ducks up, and were surprised that the negotiations stalled over something they hadn't predicted? (Seems unlikely given the stumbling blocks so far have been in pretty predictable areas, but then few people would rate her administration highly for competence right now.)

Neither the Tories nor Labour really had a coherent vision of the kind of Brexit they wanted in their 2017 manifestos so this wasn't just a May phenomenon - had Corbyn won that election, he may have had even more fun and games getting his party to take his line than May has managed - but she's the one who'll be remembered for it.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1018977546321440769

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

These votes tonight are all theatre.
Yes, it incenses Remainers that May is so willing to cave to the ERG, but if they don’t like it they can vote against - or even resign, as Bebb has.

I don’t think they change Chequers in any meaningful sense.

The ball is now in the EU’s court and we must wait for October.

It’s true though the the odds of both no Brexit and no deal have risen in the last week, largely as a result of the Davis and Johnson resignations.

Meanwhile, businesses will continue making plans to transfer investment and people away from Britain.

Yep - this is the key point. The Tories are telling business loud and clear that No Deal is coming. The Tories will own the consequences of that. Jeremy Corbyn will be delighted. Chequers could have put him on the back foot. Now he is home free.

All a bit silly really - go to all the effort of looking like you want something softer, and are willing to be firm about it, then cave in and practically say that no deal is what we are getting. Seriously, what is the point of all these changes in position? If you're giving in, give in all the way, else the fight will just come up again.

AlastairMeeks said:

It’s becoming clearer that something is going to have to give. Either Parliament is going to have to backtrack, Britain is going to crash out without a deal or Brexit isn’t going to happen.

Right now I think I order them 1,2,3 but any of them can easily be envisaged. The next few months look chaotic.

I'd like to know who changed their vote between amendments 36 and 73. Was surprised when the Gov't won with 303 votes.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1018976121772216320

All very well but they did not have the numbers tonight to beat the Government because of Labour Leave rebels and that is unlikely to change tomorrow

AlastairMeeks said:

It’s becoming clearer that something is going to have to give. Either Parliament is going to have to backtrack, Britain is going to crash out without a deal or Brexit isn’t going to happen.

Right now I think I order them 1,2,3 but any of them can easily be envisaged. The next few months look chaotic.

2,1,3 for me.

Cyclefree said:

Jonathan said:

Cyclefree said:

Gardenwalker said:

I see there is an increasing mood among some a Remainers for a no deal Brexit, because there is no other way for the country to understand the real impact of their vote.

I think this is dangerous.

Chaos, once unleashed, never seems to revert to calm. Remember the idea that Corbyn would be a flash in the pan?

Agreed.

A chaotic Brexit followed by Corbyn would be a grade "A*" fucking disaster .......

What, in God's name, must the EU be thinking of us.

Are any negotiations even planned?

I used to think JRM was an eccentric polite MP with some very old-fashioned views. Now I am beginning to loathe him. He and his band are being really quite unpatriotic and undemocratic in seeking to assume that only their view of what Brexit means is permissible and seeking to impose it in a way which makes it more likely that we end up with no deal, with all the potential harm that could lead to, or Remain, which is contrary to the referendum result (even though at present that seems to me to be preferable since I very much doubt anyone voting for Leave voted for chaos).

It’s hard to see a way back for May, this government and probably us too.

Ask the EU for a pause on Article 50 while we and they plan for an orderly no deal exit on WTO terms, which is in both our interests.

Or go back to Parliament and say that it is impossible to come up with a proposal which Parliament will back which can also be agreed with the EU and that therefore - in order to avoid a disorderly crash out - she is going to cancel Article 50, pass a one line Act to that effect and let the ECJ decide whether this is legally permissible.

If Parliament won't support this resign and see if someone else can command a majority and sort out the clusterfuck.

Then get on a plane (while they can still fly) and piss off somewhere very far away where the internet and telephone lines work intermittently if at all.

Honestly, I am no supporter of Corbyn (I would consider it a day of shame if he were to become Britain's PM) but if the Tories can't get their act together then let Labour see what they can do to sort out Brexit with the EU. They might surprise us all.

Yup it’s looking like time to call for someone else. I reckon you might be right. Corbyn is more pragmatic than this lot.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1018976121772216320

Don’t see how the Remainers get that amendment through. Tonight has proved that the Govt win votes providing they have the loyalty of the ERG.

Sasha Baron-Cohen interviewing Bernie Sanders, Palin and other politicans on 'Who is America' on C4 plus 1 now

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

These votes tonight are all theatre.
Yes, it incenses Remainers that May is so willing to cave to the ERG, but if they don’t like it they can vote against - or even resign, as Bebb has.

I don’t think they change Chequers in any meaningful sense.

The ball is now in the EU’s court and we must wait for October.

It’s true though the the odds of both no Brexit and no deal have risen in the last week, largely as a result of the Davis and Johnson resignations.

Meanwhile, businesses will continue making plans to transfer investment and people away from Britain.

Yep - this is the key point. The Tories are telling business loud and clear that No Deal is coming. The Tories will own the consequences of that. Jeremy Corbyn will be delighted. Chequers could have put him on the back foot. Now he is home free.

On current polls the only way the Tories win the next election is hard Brexit, if it is soft Brexit based on the Chequers Deal Corbyn will win because of Tory defections to UKIP

If that is the case May needs to call an election very, very soon, before the reality of what a hard Brexit, let alone a No Deal Brexit, begins to bite. We leave on 29th March 2019 and, as things stand, there will be no transition deal. That’s what the Tories have voted for tonight.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1018976121772216320

Ms Morgan and Mr Hammond’s amendment sparked serious alarm in Downing Street on Monday night, as it would wreak havoc on Mrs May’s entire negotiating strategy if passed.

Ahahahahahahaa

What f*cking negotiating strategy? The government will clearly toss anything to avoid losing a vote, so has no credibility left to negotiate with, when after Chequers it at least had the credibility of appearing to take a stand.

Flexibility is a useful attribute, but this is more akin to having to pick between 2 different directions in which to charge, and changing your mind every few seconds, ending up going nowhere.

That's not a negotiating strategy - what does May say to the EU and other heads of government? "I don't know what I'm asking for, it depends on what I have to say tomorrow to prevent another rebellion'

ERG-CON-DUP grand coalition

Pulpstar said:

Astonishing if true !

https://twitter.com/_tom_burke_/status/1018976534860877825

The reciprocity vote wasn’t that controversial. There is no way that such a partnership would work if it wasn’t; because it wouldn’t be a partnership.

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

Gardenwalker said:

These votes tonight are all theatre.
Yes, it incenses Remainers that May is so willing to cave to the ERG, but if they don’t like it they can vote against - or even resign, as Bebb has.

I don’t think they change Chequers in any meaningful sense.

The ball is now in the EU’s court and we must wait for October.

It’s true though the the odds of both no Brexit and no deal have risen in the last week, largely as a result of the Davis and Johnson resignations.

Meanwhile, businesses will continue making plans to transfer investment and people away from Britain.

Yep - this is the key point. The Tories are telling business loud and clear that No Deal is coming. The Tories will own the consequences of that. Jeremy Corbyn will be delighted. Chequers could have put him on the back foot. Now he is home free.

On current polls the only way the Tories win the next election is hard Brexit, if it is soft Brexit based on the Chequers Deal Corbyn will win because of Tory defections to UKIP

If that is the case May needs to call an election very, very soon, before the reality of what a hard Brexit, let alone a No Deal Brexit, begins to bite. We leave on 29th March 2019 and, as things stand, there will be no transition deal. That’s what the Tories have voted for tonight.

But she cannot call for one (and before anyone says the PM cannot just call for one, I think we can use it for shorthand of going through the various FTPA scenarios) while the party is so bitterly divided. She won't be able to get all current MPs on board with backing that position.

Otherwise the Tsipras strategy would be sound.

kle4 said:

MyBurningEars said:

Here's something I simply do not understand. Cameron and May were both sensible enough to avoid triggering Article 50 immediately after the referendum, because they knew some preparation time would be needed. There were some voices who wanted it triggered immediately, presumably to prevent a "betrayal", but that would clearly have been disastrous. On the other hand, the basic shape of the EU's offer, or set of plausible offers, was pretty clear from the outset. RCS points out that commission "red-lines flowchart" but it didn't contain anything that couldn't have been logically discerned.

So why did she not use that time to sort out the UK government position and get most of the ducks in a row? The fact that it's taken this long to decide what the cabinet want re customs, for example, indicates a lot of basic stuff was being left very late.

But why? May could decide when to set the trigger. If it would take more time to arrange the position, she could have taken it. Did she trigger prematurely because she thought that the EU's position was actually quite opaque and the options would only become clear once the talking had started? Did she know how hard it would be to reach cabinet agreement so didn't want to waste time and political capital discussing hypotheticals ("what if the EU don't agree to give us X" etc), and thought that her own control over the negotiations would let her impose her will when required once the process had started? Did she think that they had lined the ducks up, and were surprised that the negotiations stalled over something they hadn't predicted? (Seems unlikely given the stumbling blocks so far have been in pretty predictable areas, but then few people would rate her administration highly for competence right now.)

Neither the Tories nor Labour really had a coherent vision of the kind of Brexit they wanted in their 2017 manifestos so this wasn't just a May phenomenon - had Corbyn won that election, he may have had even more fun and games getting his party to take his line than May has managed - but she's the one who'll be remembered for it.

A question I have been trying to think of an answer to for a long time, and particularly this year. As hard as I thought Brexit might be, which was pretty hard, I simply never conceived of a situation where 2 years into a new ministry the Tory party would not have coalesced around a coherent position (or even, god forbid, the parties could try to seek some common ground). It's a level of incompetence that can have no justification.

As I said before, I think May's autobiography will be fascinating reading. What was she really thinking? Whenever we can seem to discern some rationale behind her choices, she negates it with her next move.