I am just catching up since coming back from the World Cup, but I am a little puzzled as to why our Parliament appears to have voted to have future Trade Deals* ratified without being told of their contents.
I am still trying to understand why we are walking away from trade deals with Japan and Australia so that we can negotiate trade deals with Japan and Australia.
I am waiting for the Leavers to explain how a market for 60million people will get a better deal than a market for 400 million people
As for the govts position, as pointed out in the tweets, I suspect that the reason is that they want the ability to sign any old rubbish without anyone finding out how bad it is because they need to be able to claim that Brexit is a success even when it is not
Simple we get a deal tailored 100% to us. We are different from the rest of the EU we are very good in services, do not really care about agriculture as we import a lot. So the EU deal is always we will not take your agricultural produce or in limited quantities and we do not care about services. A UK only agreement would be will will take your agriculture but you take our services.
Why would any country in their right mind concede a deal "100% tailored to us?"
Because there is not 27 other parties around the table, where we get 3.57%, When it is just us and them we get 100% of what we want because the only input is ours. It does not mean the other side capitulates, it just means there in no compromise in our position because we have so called allies on our side.
It's the other way round. 27 countries make the deal more interesting to the counterparty who is prepared to make a bigger compromise to get the deal. In general that's why parties go into consortium. It boosts their negotiating power.
We are services exporter, point me to the EU trade deal where services has been a priority?
Give us an example of what you think prioritising services would mean in practice.
I am just catching up since coming back from the World Cup, but I am a little puzzled as to why our Parliament appears to have voted to have future Trade Deals* ratified without being told of their contents.
I am still trying to understand why we are walking away from trade deals with Japan and Australia so that we can negotiate trade deals with Japan and Australia.
I am waiting for the Leavers to explain how a market for 60million people will get a better deal than a market for 400 million people
As for the govts position, as pointed out in the tweets, I suspect that the reason is that they want the ability to sign any old rubbish without anyone finding out how bad it is because they need to be able to claim that Brexit is a success even when it is not
Simple we get a deal tailored 100% to us. We are different from the rest of the EU we are very good in services, do not really care about agriculture as we import a lot. So the EU deal is always we will not take your agricultural produce or in limited quantities and we do not care about services. A UK only agreement would be will will take your agriculture but you take our services.
I was trying to think of a product that is highly protected by the EU, which the UK doesn't produce. This could then be used for the sort of leverage you refer to. There is one - oranges. Unfortunately most non-EU producers of oranges are not very powerful or interesting in trade terms, although it could be helpful to a number of not very wealthy countries.The exception, of course, is the US, but a trade deal with that country is unlikely for reasons other than oranges.
For everything else, the UK is better off trying to retain as much as possible of the deals it already had through the EU.
Products highly protected by the EU are all food products, all textiles, all services.
The EBA agreement has a zero tariff on textiles from a number of producers, Bangladesh being an important one in this context.
I am just catching up since coming back from the World Cup, but I am a little puzzled as to why our Parliament appears to have voted to have future Trade Deals* ratified without being told of their contents.
I am still trying to understand why we are walking away from trade deals with Japan and Australia so that we can negotiate trade deals with Japan and Australia.
I am waiting for the Leavers to explain how a market for 60million people will get a better deal than a market for 400 million people
As for the govts position, as pointed out in the tweets, I suspect that the reason is that they want the ability to sign any old rubbish without anyone finding out how bad it is because they need to be able to claim that Brexit is a success even when it is not
Simple we get a deal tailored 100% to us. We are different from the rest of the EU we are very good in services, do not really care about agriculture as we import a lot. So the EU deal is always we will not take your agricultural produce or in limited quantities and we do not care about services. A UK only agreement would be will will take your agriculture but you take our services.
I was trying to think of a product that is highly protected by the EU, which the UK doesn't produce. This could then be used for the sort of leverage you refer to. There is one - oranges. Unfortunately most non-EU producers of oranges are not very powerful or interesting in trade terms, although it could be helpful to a number of not very wealthy countries.The exception, of course, is the US, but a trade deal with that country is unlikely for reasons other than oranges.
For everything else, the UK is better off trying to retain as much as possible of the deals it already had through the EU.
The Tories’ best chance to win the next election is to accept and embrace being the Party of Brexit.
The public doesn’t want a second referendum, but appears likely to vote Remain if there is one. That’s a real conundrum for Remainers - would a 5 point lead be enough when the hue and cry of betrayal is in full flow?
Labour’s current strategy is perfect. A second referendum would however require a totally new strategy.
The problem for Brexiteers is that there is almost no support for a Brexit deal. Brexit has been polarised around Remain or No Deal, and No Deal will be harder and harder to defend as the weeks tick by.
You're heading for a crushing loss in a second referendum of far more than 5 points.
Rubbish. Immigration control would get no deal to 40% on its own. I think a combination of outrage over second-guessing the first referendum, plus the super Brexit constituencies (eg fishermen) and ideological sovereigntists would get us to 50% or thereabouts.
The Tories’ best chance to win the next election is to accept and embrace being the Party of Brexit.
The public doesn’t want a second referendum, but appears likely to vote Remain if there is one. That’s a real conundrum for Remainers - would a 5 point lead be enough when the hue and cry of betrayal is in full flow?
Labour’s current strategy is perfect. A second referendum would however require a totally new strategy.
The problem for Brexiteers is that there is almost no support for a Brexit deal. Brexit has been polarised around Remain or No Deal, and No Deal will be harder and harder to defend as the weeks tick by.
You're heading for a crushing loss in a second referendum of far more than 5 points.
If it happens I would suggest that "betrayal" might feature
Yes, the Hard Brexiteers will be crying that the public have betrayed them, and it all would have worked out fine if only we had held our nerve...
You've missed out an assumption, rather a large one. My suggestion was pre-vote, your answer is post.
It's still curious that the Lib Dems are going nowhere in polling.
When their own leader is missing votes like yesterday’s it really isn’t. The LDs under Cable are ridiculous.
There does seem to be a lot of inter party warfare over Brexit and we have not even talked about labour's Jewish problem
Both parties need to split at this point. These Tory Remainers and Leavers need to go their separate ways. Anna Soubry and JRM being in the same party is a joke. Likewise, in Labour there is nothing binding moderates and Corbynistas together. Chuka Umunna and Cat Smith et al are at totally different ends. Those Corbynistas hate ‘Blairites’ and vice versa.
41% is the highest Labour score with YouGov since 5 April. A rogue, or a sign that the Tories are losing some votes to Labour now as well as to UKIP?
No, as if UKIP were back to 2017 levels on 2% and 5% of their 7% total went back to the Tories, the Tories would be tied with Labour on 41% each
I don't think that logic works. It's very unlikely that the rise in the UKIP vote comes exclusively from people shifting from the Conservatives. Labour gaining exasperated remainers from the Tories while losing leavers to UKIP must be a part of the explanation.
But unless UKIP gets its branches back into shape, I don't see how they can take much advantage of their new popularity. So I'd say despite appearances the stalemate between the two big parties in the popular vote is probably still holding.
Actually you only need to look at the numbers to see the UKIP rise does indeed come almost exclusively from people shifting from the Tories given the Tories were consistently over 40% and are now consistently barely above 35% post Chequers Deal. The Labour total meanwhile is pretty much the same as it was before Chequers. UKIP still put up candidates in more than half the seats even in GE 2017
A fairly simple way for Leavers to deal with that AV poll on Brexit, just add options for staying in the EU outside the Euro, staying in the EU but joining the Euro and Schengen or leaving the EU but staying in the single market and customs union. That should split the Remain vote a bit
There are lots of permutations. Leave with a deal, but what sort of deal? Leave without a deal, but is it an orderly Leave or not? Remain on current terms, or Remain and be nailed down?
And the more the permutations the more likely hard Brexit wins
I am just catching up since coming back from the World Cup, but I am a little puzzled as to why our Parliament appears to have voted to have future Trade Deals* ratified without being told of their contents.
I am still trying to understand why we are walking away from trade deals with Japan and Australia so that we can negotiate trade deals with Japan and Australia.
I am waiting for the Leavers to explain how a market for 60million people will get a better deal than a market for 400 million people
As for the govts position, as pointed out in the tweets, I suspect that the reason is that they want the ability to sign any old rubbish without anyone finding out how bad it is because they need to be able to claim that Brexit is a success even when it is not
Simple we get a deal tailored 100% to us. We are different from the rest of the EU we are very good in services, do not really care about agriculture as we import a lot. So the EU deal is always we will not take your agricultural produce or in limited quantities and we do not care about services. A UK only agreement would be will will take your agriculture but you take our services.
I was trying to think of a product that is highly protected by the EU, which the UK doesn't produce. This could then be used for the sort of leverage you refer to. There is one - oranges. Unfortunately most non-EU producers of oranges are not very powerful or interesting in trade terms, although it could be helpful to a number of not very wealthy countries.The exception, of course, is the US, but a trade deal with that country is unlikely for reasons other than oranges.
For everything else, the UK is better off trying to retain as much as possible of the deals it already had through the EU.
I am just catching up since coming back from the World Cup, but I am a little puzzled as to why our Parliament appears to have voted to have future Trade Deals* ratified without being told of their contents.
I am still trying to understand why we are walking away from trade deals with Japan and Australia so that we can negotiate trade deals with Japan and Australia.
I am waiting for the Leavers to explain how a market for 60million people will get a better deal than a market for 400 million people
As for the govts position, as pointed out in the tweets, I suspect that the reason is that they want the ability to sign any old rubbish without anyone finding out how bad it is because they need to be able to claim that Brexit is a success even when it is not
Simple we get a deal tailored 100% to us. We are different from the rest of the EU we are very good in services, do not really care about agriculture as we import a lot. So the EU deal is always we will not take your agricultural produce or in limited quantities and we do not care about services. A UK only agreement would be will will take your agriculture but you take our services.
For everything else, the UK is better off trying to retain as much as possible of the deals it already had through the EU.
Products highly protected by the EU are all food products, all textiles, all services.
The EBA agreement has a zero tariff on textiles from a number of producers, Bangladesh being an important one in this context.
And the agreements are stuffed full of other NTB;s like the countries must comply with EU regs for food production (they can not), they must comply with Labour Laws (they can not), etc, etc. They are not worth the paper they are written on. Just do a google search for African countries un happy with EU trade deals. Do not get me started on the EU nicking their fish and starving the local population.
It's still curious that the Lib Dems are going nowhere in polling.
When their own leader is missing votes like yesterday’s it really isn’t. The LDs under Cable are ridiculous.
There does seem to be a lot of inter party warfare over Brexit and we have not even talked about labour's Jewish problem
Both parties need to split at this point. These Tory Remainers and Leavers need to go their separate ways. Anna Soubry and JRM being in the same party is a joke. Likewise, in Labour there is nothing binding moderates and Corbynistas together. Chuka Umunna and Cat Smith et al are at totally different ends. Those Corbynistas hate ‘Blairites’ and vice versa.
In an ideal world but as desirable as it is I do not see a pathway for it, unfortunately
The Tories’ best chance to win the next election is to accept and embrace being the Party of Brexit.
The public doesn’t want a second referendum, but appears likely to vote Remain if there is one. That’s a real conundrum for Remainers - would a 5 point lead be enough when the hue and cry of betrayal is in full flow?
Labour’s current strategy is perfect. A second referendum would however require a totally new strategy.
The problem for Brexiteers is that there is almost no support for a Brexit deal. Brexit has been polarised around Remain or No Deal, and No Deal will be harder and harder to defend as the weeks tick by.
You're heading for a crushing loss in a second referendum of far more than 5 points.
If it happens I would suggest that "betrayal" might feature
Yes, the Hard Brexiteers will be crying that the public have betrayed them, and it all would have worked out fine if only we had held our nerve...
You've missed out an assumption, rather a large one. My suggestion was pre-vote, your answer is post.
It won't work. Betrayal is an argument that will burn out within a week in a campaign where the choice has existential consequences.
It's still curious that the Lib Dems are going nowhere in polling.
When their own leader is missing votes like yesterday’s it really isn’t. The LDs under Cable are ridiculous.
There does seem to be a lot of inter party warfare over Brexit and we have not even talked about labour's Jewish problem
Both parties need to split at this point. These Tory Remainers and Leavers need to go their separate ways. Anna Soubry and JRM being in the same party is a joke. Likewise, in Labour there is nothing binding moderates and Corbynistas together. Chuka Umunna and Cat Smith et al are at totally different ends. Those Corbynistas hate ‘Blairites’ and vice verse.
Never going to happen though - as one side looks weaker and close to fragmenting the other side pulls together, since now they know their side will win due to the other lot falling out, and they don't want to miss out on that, even if it means someone they really don't like being PM. They will always think their time, or their ideas at least, will come again.
There is something binding them all together, and it is tribalism. There were always some Tories who belonged in UKIP, based on purported ideologies (and now the Tory position with the most support is no deal or hard brexit they are in the ascendancy however), and there are people in Labour who based on their purported ideologies don't look like they fit any more either, but having put so much time and effort into the party they always justify staying. Big tent party, all parties are coalitions and all that.
A realignment of party politics would make so much more sense than the contortions each goes through at present. But inertia is so strong it keeps them all in place. Fear of the other lot succeeding keeps them all in place.
And it is what the public wants. Compromise is punished. Lack of extreme positioning is punished. There is no desire for a centrist option, even if people say they want one - our actions as the public demonstrate it to be so.
And any split party would suffer. It would be analysed for how many former Tories or Labour or LDs it had, who it really was, and not enough Labour or Tory or LD voters would back it because it's got that Anna Soubry in it, or Chuka Umunna. They've all spent too long saying how bad the other lot are they couldn't sustain it either, even if they agree on more than their respective leaderships they will have stayed loyal on some major votes they didn't like and the other would constantly have that thrown in their face. He voted for X, how could you be in the same party, etc etc.
The thing I find interesting about this — apart from noting the country is split straight down the middle both on whether or not to Leave, and whether or not to have a referendum — is the desire of Leavers for a no Deal exit.
A full 2/3 of Leavers simply want to crash out into some form of North Korean autarchy.
What a pack of fucking nut cakes. And yet they seem to have control of the steering wheel.
They still believe the propaganda that No Deal won't be so bad...
There has been a systemic failure in the media, most notably on the BBC.
When was Davis ever asked why negotiations were not concluded as easily as he promised?
When has Boris been asked where the Brexit dividend is given that official government statistics show that Brexit is already costing us millions in lost growth?
When has Fox ever been asked why he has failed to make any progress at all, while the EU pursues trade agreements with Canada and Japan?
When has May been asked whether triggering A50 without a coherent plan made any sense whatsoever?
They have all been given very easy rides, and Remainer media such as Faisal has focused too much on being scandalised by the latest government collapse and not enough on holding to account.
Most of the outrage has focused upon the initial Referendum result.
Indeed. That has been the failure. The Establishment media has simply been outraged at losing, and totally neglected to ask pointed questions of the winners, Not fit for purpose.
+1. It’s the same with the Tories drift to the right and Labour’s drift to the left. One of the biggest things holding back these centrists is that they seem to think that they are owed positions of power/influence. When they aren’t the influencers, it’s all outrage.
It might have been better for Labour Blairites to have remained in the Shadow Cabinet, and attempted to influence from there rather than storm out and demand a 2nd vote, which, amazingly to no-one but them, merely confirmed the first. If Remainers, of which I am one, had focussed on the boring minutiae of policy, rather than grandstanding demos, and moaning about lying and cheating, we may be in a more coherent position now. Or not.
Excellent news from the far East for our exporters:
I am just catching up since coming back from the World Cup, but I am a little puzzled as to why our Parliament appears to have voted to have future Trade Deals* ratified without being told of their contents.
I am still trying to understand why we are walking away from trade deals with Japan and Australia so that we can negotiate trade deals with Japan and Australia.
I am waiting for the Leavers to explain how a market for 60million people will get a better deal than a market for 400 million people
As for the govts position, as pointed out in the tweets, I suspect that the reason is that they want the ability to sign any old rubbish without anyone finding out how bad it is because they need to be able to claim that Brexit is a success even when it is not
Simple we get a deal tailored 100% to us. We are different from the rest of the EU we are very good in services, do not really care about agriculture as we import a lot. So the EU deal is always we will not take your agricultural produce or in limited quantities and we do not care about services. A UK only agreement would be will will take your agriculture but you take our services.
I was trying to think of a product that is highly protected by the EU, which the UK doesn't produce. This could then be used for the sort of leverage you refer to. There is one - oranges. Unfortunately most non-EU producers of oranges are not very powerful or interesting in trade terms, although it could be helpful to a number of not very wealthy countries.The exception, of course, is the US, but a trade deal with that country is unlikely for reasons other than oranges.
For everything else, the UK is better off trying to retain as much as possible of the deals it already had through the EU.
As I understand it EU tarrifs on Oranges are seasonal, and already being reduced, and are at zero for the 3 countries that export most to the EU (Morrocco, Tunisia and South Africa). This is quite a long Twitter thread, but Jim Cornelius does cite chapter and verse very well:
It's still curious that the Lib Dems are going nowhere in polling.
When their own leader is missing votes like yesterday’s it really isn’t. The LDs under Cable are ridiculous.
There does seem to be a lot of inter party warfare over Brexit and we have not even talked about labour's Jewish problem
Both parties need to split at this point. These Tory Remainers and Leavers need to go their separate ways. Anna Soubry and JRM being in the same party is a joke. Likewise, in Labour there is nothing binding moderates and Corbynistas together. Chuka Umunna and Cat Smith et al are at totally different ends. Those Corbynistas hate ‘Blairites’ and vice versa.
If we had PR or even maybe AV, STV or French style second ballot both the Tories and Labour would split in 5 minutes, it is only FPTP keeping them together
A fairly simple way for Leavers to deal with that AV poll on Brexit, just add options for staying in the EU outside the Euro, staying in the EU but joining the Euro and Schengen or leaving the EU but staying in the single market and customs union. That should split the Remain vote a bit
There are lots of permutations. Leave with a deal, but what sort of deal? Leave without a deal, but is it an orderly Leave or not? Remain on current terms, or Remain and be nailed down?
Perhaps we need at least six choices on the ballot. Remain on current terms may not be an option - our rebate might go for a start and more. We don't know what the deal might be but we don't know what remain will mean either. The EU might well wish to extract their pound of flesh.
Reasonable letter in The Times today along those lines (Paywall obviously). Essentially, are Remainers seeking a fresh public vote on the deal (as a route to remaining from their point of view) going to be able to guarantee the same terms for the UK. If the EU demand changes will the same Remainers then be consistent and support referendum III on that new Remain deal.
I am just catching up since coming back from the World Cup, but I am a little puzzled as to why our Parliament appears to have voted to have future Trade Deals* ratified without being told of their contents.
I am still trying to understand why we are walking away from trade deals with Japan and Australia so that we can negotiate trade deals with Japan and Australia.
I am waiting for the Leavers to explain how a market for 60million people will get a better deal than a market for 400 million people
As for the govts position, as pointed out in the tweets, I suspect that the reason is that they want the ability to sign any old rubbish without anyone finding out how bad it is because they need to be able to claim that Brexit is a success even when it is not
Simple we get a deal tailored 100% to us. We are different from the rest of the EU we are very good in services, do not really care about agriculture as we import a lot. So the EU deal is always we will not take your agricultural produce or in limited quantities and we do not care about services. A UK only agreement would be will will take your agriculture but you take our services.
For everything else, the UK is better off trying to retain as much as possible of the deals it already had through the EU.
Products highly protected by the EU are all food products, all textiles, all services.
The EBA agreement has a zero tariff on textiles from a number of producers, Bangladesh being an important one in this context.
And the agreements are stuffed full of other NTB;s like the countries must comply with EU regs for food production (they can not), they must comply with Labour Laws (they can not), etc, etc. They are not worth the paper they are written on. Just do a google search for African countries un happy with EU trade deals. Do not get me started on the EU nicking their fish and starving the local population.
A few decades ago that may well have been true, but one example of our positive influence in the EU has been the reduction in external tariffs by the EU, and in particular the EBA agreement that covers most LDCs (and which Brexit Britain will be leaving).
The Tories’ best chance to win the next election is to accept and embrace being the Party of Brexit.
The public doesn’t want a second referendum, but appears likely to vote Remain if there is one. That’s a real conundrum for Remainers - would a 5 point lead be enough when the hue and cry of betrayal is in full flow?
Labour’s current strategy is perfect. A second referendum would however require a totally new strategy.
The problem for Brexiteers is that there is almost no support for a Brexit deal. Brexit has been polarised around Remain or No Deal, and No Deal will be harder and harder to defend as the weeks tick by.
You're heading for a crushing loss in a second referendum of far more than 5 points.
If it happens I would suggest that "betrayal" might feature
Yes, the Hard Brexiteers will be crying that the public have betrayed them, and it all would have worked out fine if only we had held our nerve...
You've missed out an assumption, rather a large one. My suggestion was pre-vote, your answer is post.
It won't work. Betrayal is an argument that will burn out within a week in a campaign where the choice has existential consequences.
I am just catching up since coming back from the World Cup, but I am a little puzzled as to why our Parliament appears to have voted to have future Trade Deals* ratified without being told of their contents.
I am still trying to understand why we are walking away from trade deals with Japan and Australia so that we can negotiate trade deals with Japan and Australia.
I am waiting for the Leavers to explain how a market for 60million people will get a better deal than a market for 400 million people
.
I was trying to think of a product that is highly protected by the EU, which the UK doesn't produce. This could then be used for the sort of leverage you refer to. There is one - oranges. Unfortunately most non-EU producers of oranges are not very powerful or interesting in trade terms, although it could be helpful to a number of not very wealthy countries.The exception, of course, is the US, but a trade deal with that country is unlikely for reasons other than oranges.
For everything else, the UK is better off trying to retain as much as possible of the deals it already had through the EU.
Is Boris still supposed to be making a resignation speech tomorrow?
After today's fury in the house over the leave vote and his involvement in it he is likely to go down like a lead balloon. Maybe better waiting for another day
I am just catching up since coming back from the World Cup, but I am a little puzzled as to why our Parliament appears to have voted to have future Trade Deals* ratified without being told of their contents.
For everything else, the UK is better off trying to retain as much as possible of the deals it already had through the EU.
Products highly protected by the EU are all food products, all textiles, all services.
The EBA agreement has a zero tariff on textiles from a number of producers, Bangladesh being an important one in this context.
And the agreements are stuffed full of other NTB;s like the countries must comply with EU regs for food production (they can not), they must comply with Labour Laws (they can not), etc, etc. They are not worth the paper they are written on. Just do a google search for African countries un happy with EU trade deals. Do not get me started on the EU nicking their fish and starving the local population.
A few decades ago that may well have been true, but one example of our positive influence in the EU has been the reduction in external tariffs by the EU, and in particular the EBA agreement that covers most LDCs (and which Brexit Britain will be leaving).
You say "but one example of our positive influence in the EU has been the reduction in external tariffs by the EU" I would love this to be true but do you have any proof,
A fairly simple way for Leavers to deal with that AV poll on Brexit, just add options for staying in the EU outside the Euro, staying in the EU but joining the Euro and Schengen or leaving the EU but staying in the single market and customs union. That should split the Remain vote a bit
There are lots of permutations. Leave with a deal, but what sort of deal? Leave without a deal, but is it an orderly Leave or not? Remain on current terms, or Remain and be nailed down?
Perhaps we need at least six choices on the ballot. Remain on current terms may not be an option - our rebate might go for a start and more. We don't know what the deal might be but we don't know what remain will mean either. The EU might well wish to extract their pound of flesh.
Reasonable letter in The Times today along those lines (Paywall obviously). Essentially, are Remainers seeking a fresh public vote on the deal (as a route to remaining from their point of view) going to be able to guarantee the same terms for the UK. If the EU demand changes will the same Remainers then be consistent and support referendum III on that new Remain deal.
We need to vote to rescind the Art 50 notice to obviate that difficulty.
Whether those ministers should be sacked or resign or not.
Molly Scott Cato's time on the EU gravy train will almost certainly be coming to an end next March. She must be so disappointed that the voters voted to sack her in the referendum.
But, would get slaughtered at a subsequent general election.
I am not sure that is true any more.
The Labour brand is anti-Semitic.
The Tory brand is fuck-business.
If another Party can't beat either of those, they shouldn't be in politics.
Quite possibly the only thing stopping it happening is the lack of a leader. If such a grouping had a good leader, then it would not get slaughtered at a subsequent general election.
Problem is that there aren’t any around right now.
It's still curious that the Lib Dems are going nowhere in polling.
When their own leader is missing votes like yesterday’s it really isn’t. The LDs under Cable are ridiculous.
There does seem to be a lot of inter party warfare over Brexit and we have not even talked about labour's Jewish problem
Both parties need to split at this point. These Tory Remainers and Leavers need to go their separate ways. Anna Soubry and JRM being in the same party is a joke. Likewise, in Labour there is nothing binding moderates and Corbynistas together. Chuka Umunna and Cat Smith et al are at totally different ends. Those Corbynistas hate ‘Blairites’ and vice versa.
If we had PR or even maybe AV, STV or French style second ballot both the Tories and Labour would split in 5 minutes, it is only FPTP keeping them together
That's only true if donors/unions stick with the big two, I guess. If half the Tory business money went to breakaway remainers and Unison decided their bread was buttered elsewhere, it'd be a different picture.
But, would get slaughtered at a subsequent general election.
I am not sure that is true any more.
The Labour brand is anti-Semitic.
The Tory brand is fuck-business.
If another Party can't beat either of those, they shouldn't be in politics.
Back in the early 80's, Labour were the party of unilateral disarmament, nationalisation, and the Closed Shop. The Tories were the Party of 3 million unemployed and factory closures.
It's still curious that the Lib Dems are going nowhere in polling.
When their own leader is missing votes like yesterday’s it really isn’t. The LDs under Cable are ridiculous.
There does seem to be a lot of inter party warfare over Brexit and we have not even talked about labour's Jewish problem
Both parties need to split at this point. These Tory Remainers and Leavers need to go their separate ways. Anna Soubry and JRM being in the same party is a joke. Likewise, in Labour there is nothing binding moderates and Corbynistas together. Chuka Umunna and Cat Smith et al are at totally different ends. Those Corbynistas hate ‘Blairites’ and vice versa.
If we had PR or even maybe AV, STV or French style second ballot both the Tories and Labour would split in 5 minutes, it is only FPTP keeping them together
That's only true if donors/unions stick with the big two, I guess. If half the Tory business money went to breakaway remainers and Unison decided their bread was buttered elsewhere, it'd be a different picture.
Don't we hear every few months that some new party is being floated, and there's big money ready to go for it?
Often when it gets reported even the suggested name is terrible.
Is Boris still supposed to be making a resignation speech tomorrow?
Whats the point of his resignation now the Government has swallowed the ERG amendments whole and not lost any to any pro remain factions ?
He needs to position for the post May contest, whether that happens next week or if she sees us over the line to March and he takes over as the guy who shares no blame at all for anything because he has been out of government for a few months.
It's still curious that the Lib Dems are going nowhere in polling.
When their own leader is missing votes like yesterday’s it really isn’t. The LDs under Cable are ridiculous.
There does seem to be a lot of inter party warfare over Brexit and we have not even talked about labour's Jewish problem
Both parties need to split at this point. These Tory Remainers and Leavers need to go their separate ways. Anna Soubry and JRM being in the same party is a joke. Likewise, in Labour there is nothing binding moderates and Corbynistas together. Chuka Umunna and Cat Smith et al are at totally different ends. Those Corbynistas hate ‘Blairites’ and vice versa.
If we had PR or even maybe AV, STV or French style second ballot both the Tories and Labour would split in 5 minutes, it is only FPTP keeping them together
That's only true if donors/unions stick with the big two, I guess. If half the Tory business money went to breakaway remainers and Unison decided their bread was buttered elsewhere, it'd be a different picture.
The impact of finance in terms of winning votes is very overrated.
There does seem to be a lot of inter party warfare over Brexit and we have not even talked about labour's Jewish problem
Labour MPs say they are ashamed to members of the Party, but won't quit.
Tories can't support the government, but won't quit.
If the sensible MPs on both sides banded together they could rout the headbangers at both ends.
But they won't
If pro Remain Tories teemed up with Lib Dems and anti-Corbyn Labour MP's, they'd form a large bloc.
But, would get slaughtered at a subsequent general election.
Ah, essentially saying in 27 words what took me 358 words to get out.
I may need to work on condensing my political expression.
Sean is an absolute master at this, I doff my hat to him. I can only think he gets paid by the antiword. I don't think there's anything I can say in a 1000-word multipost he can't clearly communicate the actual point of in about 20-50...
Edit: based on my laughter-count, also one of the funniest posters on PB. Definitely funniest-per-word. He is PB God-Emperor of the Litotes.
But, would get slaughtered at a subsequent general election.
I am not sure that is true any more.
The Labour brand is anti-Semitic.
The Tory brand is fuck-business.
If another Party can't beat either of those, they shouldn't be in politics.
That, though, isn't true. The VAST majority pay very little attention. They either vote for their Party in the way they have always done (like supporting a team), or on "feeling" simply liking/disliking the leader or message presented at election time. Most won't even know what anti-Semitism is. Some who do will heartily approve. Few will have heard of Boris' comments, or considered that they are a repudiation of much Conservative tradition. FPTP makes this a very high bar for any new Party to jump.
That Hodge story is weird to me. She reportedly believes so firmly that Corbyn is a racist and anti-semite that she will say so to his face, but she is content to remain in the same party that whose membership idolises him? She could always go indy and still vote against the Tories along with labour almost all the time, without the oddness of backing a man for PM who she so dislikes.
Recent pre-Heslinki polling has nudged against Trump (even Rasmussen giving him a -7 rating) and the generic Democrat lead has edged up towards double figures again:
It's still curious that the Lib Dems are going nowhere in polling.
When their own leader is missing votes like yesterday’s it really isn’t. The LDs under Cable are ridiculous.
There does seem to be a lot of inter party warfare over Brexit and we have not even talked about labour's Jewish problem
Both parties need to split at this point. These Tory Remainers and Leavers need to go their separate ways. Anna Soubry and JRM being in the same party is a joke. Likewise, in Labour there is nothing binding moderates and Corbynistas together. Chuka Umunna and Cat Smith et al are at totally different ends. Those Corbynistas hate ‘Blairites’ and vice versa.
If we had PR or even maybe AV, STV or French style second ballot both the Tories and Labour would split in 5 minutes, it is only FPTP keeping them together
That's only true if donors/unions stick with the big two, I guess. If half the Tory business money went to breakaway remainers and Unison decided their bread was buttered elsewhere, it'd be a different picture.
The impact of finance in terms of winning votes is very overrated.
Even if it buys voteshare, hard under FPTP to buy seats. If we had multimember STV or some variant of PR things might be different - Ireland, Sweden, France, Germany, Italy, Spain have all shown substantial churn of their political parties over recent years, even if actual takeovers have been limited to a couple of them. The Referendum Party did not have immense funding compared to the other parties, yet more than minor parties typically do and I am sure that funding was part of what allowed them to score a respectable 2.6% voteshare in 1997 (3.1% in seats they contested), but got nowhere near winning any of them. What was their best constituency result - I know they got a four seats above 7%?
That Hodge story is weird to me. She reportedly believes so firmly that Corbyn is a racist and anti-semite that she will say so to his face, but she is content to remain in the same party that whose membership idolises him? She could always go indy and still vote against the Tories along with labour almost all the time, without the oddness of backing a man for PM who she so dislikes.
Recent pre-Heslinki polling has nudged against Trump (even Rasmussen giving him a -7 rating) and the generic Democrat lead has edged up towards double figures again:
Tends to confirm my feeling that Trump is done. You can’t be a weak autocrat. His Helsinki performance looked weak, and then a day later reversing himself while trying to explain it all as a slip of the tongue just makes him see weaker.
If his ratings were already slipping pre Helsinki, Mike’s bet against his renomination is starting to look very shrewd.
It's still curious that the Lib Dems are going nowhere in polling.
When their own leader is missing votes like yesterday’s it really isn’t. The LDs under Cable are ridiculous.
There does seem to be a lot of inter party warfare over Brexit and we have not even talked about labour's Jewish problem
Both parties need to split at this point. These Tory Remainers and Leavers need to go their separate ways. Anna Soubry and JRM being in the same party is a joke. Likewise, in Labour there is nothing binding moderates and Corbynistas together. Chuka Umunna and Cat Smith et al are at totally different ends. Those Corbynistas hate ‘Blairites’ and vice versa.
If we had PR or even maybe AV, STV or French style second ballot both the Tories and Labour would split in 5 minutes, it is only FPTP keeping them together
That's only true if donors/unions stick with the big two, I guess. If half the Tory business money went to breakaway remainers and Unison decided their bread was buttered elsewhere, it'd be a different picture.
The impact of finance in terms of winning votes is very overrated.
I was more thinking in terms of being able to afford to field a full house of candidates, and basic local administration like offices which are the prerequisites for a genuinely national multi-issue party.
The Tories’ best chance to win the next election is to accept and embrace being the Party of Brexit.
The public doesn’t want a second referendum, but appears likely to vote Remain if there is one. That’s a real conundrum for Remainers - would a 5 point lead be enough when the hue and cry of betrayal is in full flow?
Labour’s current strategy is perfect. A second referendum would however require a totally new strategy.
The problem for Brexiteers is that there is almost no support for a Brexit deal. Brexit has been polarised around Remain or No Deal, and No Deal will be harder and harder to defend as the weeks tick by.
You're heading for a crushing loss in a second referendum of far more than 5 points.
If it happens I would suggest that "betrayal" might feature
Yes, the Hard Brexiteers will be crying that the public have betrayed them, and it all would have worked out fine if only we had held our nerve...
You've missed out an assumption, rather a large one. My suggestion was pre-vote, your answer is post.
It won't work. Betrayal is an argument that will burn out within a week in a campaign where the choice has existential consequences.
Like the one we've had?
The choice people were given was between sunlit uplands and the dreary status quo. Nothing like the choice we're facing.
It's still curious that the Lib Dems are going nowhere in polling.
When their own leader is missing votes like yesterday’s it really isn’t. The LDs under Cable are ridiculous.
There does seem to be a lot of inter party warfare over Brexit and we have not even talked about labour's Jewish problem
Both parties need to split at this point. These Tory Remainers and Leavers need to go their separate ways. Anna Soubry and JRM being in the same party is a joke. Likewise, in Labour there is nothing binding moderates and Corbynistas together. Chuka Umunna and Cat Smith et al are at totally different ends. Those Corbynistas hate ‘Blairites’ and vice versa.
If we had PR or even maybe AV, STV or French style second ballot both the Tories and Labour would split in 5 minutes, it is only FPTP keeping them together
That's only true if donors/unions stick with the big two, I guess. If half the Tory business money went to breakaway remainers and Unison decided their bread was buttered elsewhere, it'd be a different picture.
The impact of finance in terms of winning votes is very overrated.
I was more thinking in terms of being able to afford to field a full house of candidates, and basic local administration like offices which are the prerequisites for a genuinely national multi-issue party.
Seems like it would depend how many activists went with the MPs to handle the legwork.
The Tories’ best chance to win the next election is to accept and embrace being the Party of Brexit.
The public doesn’t want a second referendum, but appears likely to vote Remain if there is one. That’s a real conundrum for Remainers - would a 5 point lead be enough when the hue and cry of betrayal is in full flow?
Labour’s current strategy is perfect. A second referendum would however require a totally new strategy.
The problem for Brexiteers is that there is almost no support for a Brexit deal. Brexit has been polarised around Remain or No Deal, and No Deal will be harder and harder to defend as the weeks tick by.
You're heading for a crushing loss in a second referendum of far more than 5 points.
If it happens I would suggest that "betrayal" might feature
Yes, the Hard Brexiteers will be crying that the public have betrayed them, and it all would have worked out fine if only we had held our nerve...
You've missed out an assumption, rather a large one. My suggestion was pre-vote, your answer is post.
It won't work. Betrayal is an argument that will burn out within a week in a campaign where the choice has existential consequences.
Like the one we've had?
The choice people were given was between sunlit uplands and the dreary status quo. Nothing like the choice we're facing.
Which will disappoint you more:
1) Leaving the EU 2) Doing so after a second referendum
Is Boris still supposed to be making a resignation speech tomorrow?
Whats the point of his resignation now the Government has swallowed the ERG amendments whole and not lost any to any pro remain factions ?
Maybe he'll enlighten us tomorrow?
I wonder if it could follow the same pattern as his leadership bid after the referendum: a speech about the glories of Brexit before segueing into a conclusion that writes it off as a lost cause.
Corbyn/Anti-semitism. Labour activists are rather prone to conspiracies. Ones I know (who I'm sure are NOT anti semitic) believe the whole antisemitism thing is being blown up as a way to get at Jeremy Corbyn.
What's happening with the planned early holiday for MPs? Given we're nearly in holiday season it could proceed with little attention but it could also be the final straw if the public pay attention. Giving MPs longer holidays is the sort of thing that irritates voters, to do so in the middle of the current convulsions seems madness. I can only assume they are gambling that most people won't notice. If they do there could be hell to pay.
There does seem to be a lot of inter party warfare over Brexit and we have not even talked about labour's Jewish problem
Labour MPs say they are ashamed to members of the Party, but won't quit.
Tories can't support the government, but won't quit.
If the sensible MPs on both sides banded together they could rout the headbangers at both ends.
But they won't
If pro Remain Tories teemed up with Lib Dems and anti-Corbyn Labour MP's, they'd form a large bloc.
But, would get slaughtered at a subsequent general election.
I think a lot of people who want it to happen really need to see it to believe it. In their eyes if a 'sensible' party that shared much of their goals came along then everyone but the 'extremes' would surely back it and it would win easily.
Recent pre-Heslinki polling has nudged against Trump (even Rasmussen giving him a -7 rating) and the generic Democrat lead has edged up towards double figures again:
Tends to confirm my feeling that Trump is done. You can’t be a weak autocrat. His Helsinki performance looked weak, and then a day later reversing himself while trying to explain it all as a slip of the tongue just makes him see weaker.
If his ratings were already slipping pre Helsinki, Mike’s bet against his renomination is starting to look very shrewd.
I still think the American political establishment is unable to split Trump from his voters. If they just go after Trump his supporters will take it as a personal slight. Someone has to reach out to them. I my be wrong but which Republicans are doing that without being Trump sycophants.
Corbyn/Anti-semitism. Labour activists are rather prone to conspiracies. Ones I know (who I'm sure are NOT anti semitic) believe the whole antisemitism thing is being blown up as a way to get at Jeremy Corbyn.
What's happening with the planned early holiday for MPs? Given we're nearly in holiday season it could proceed with little attention but it could also be the final straw if the public pay attention. Giving MPs longer holidays is the sort of thing that irritates voters, to do so in the middle of the current convulsions seems madness. I can only assume they are gambling that most people won't notice. If they do there could be hell to pay.
But, would get slaughtered at a subsequent general election.
I am not sure that is true any more.
The Labour brand is anti-Semitic.
The Tory brand is fuck-business.
If another Party can't beat either of those, they shouldn't be in politics.
That, though, isn't true. The VAST majority pay very little attention. They either vote for their Party in the way they have always done (like supporting a team), or on "feeling" simply liking/disliking the leader or message presented at election time. Most won't even know what anti-Semitism is. Some who do will heartily approve. Few will have heard of Boris' comments, or considered that they are a repudiation of much Conservative tradition. FPTP makes this a very high bar for any new Party to jump.
The problem is, any fracture in the party system will be reactive rather than proactive. Those of us paying close attention see this stuff and are aware of the idiocy and repugnance it is likely to entail - the wider public won't be until they actually see the results. A new party would find fertile ground after a botched Brexit and a failure either in government, or in opposition by Corbyn's Labour - but only when they have been empirically discredited.
If pro Remain Tories teemed up with Lib Dems and anti-Corbyn Labour MP's, they'd form a large bloc.
But, would get slaughtered at a subsequent general election.
Probably yes, but I'm not 100% sure.
With the proviso that anything could happen post-Brexit, a result equal to the Lib Dems in 2005 or 2010 (i.e. 60ish seats) should be achievable at the least: i.e. it's been demonstrated in living memory that's within reach of a credible centrist party.
So if (say) 30 from Labour and 20 from the Tories jumped ship, a new party/alliance could potentially hold its own.
The challenge for individual MPs is that the 50 seats a centrist party would hold are not the 50 seats currently held by the centrist MPs who might jump ship. So there'd be a fair amount of career suicide.
Still, it's not unthinkable. Chuka Umunna's Streatham seat is not necessarily nailed-on Corbynite Labour. PB posters need no reminder of Broxtowe's marginal status. And if I were a Remain Tory MP, I'd be seriously considering my options after this week's shenanigans - the ERG are indulged while the Remainers are threatened with apocalyptic consequences.
It would be a leap in the dark, but then isn't all politics like that right now?
If pro Remain Tories teemed up with Lib Dems and anti-Corbyn Labour MP's, they'd form a large bloc.
But, would get slaughtered at a subsequent general election.
Probably yes, but I'm not 100% sure.
With the proviso that anything could happen post-Brexit, a result equal to the Lib Dems in 2005 or 2010 (i.e. 60ish seats) should be achievable at the least: i.e. it's been demonstrated in living memory that's within reach of a credible centrist party.
So if (say) 30 from Labour and 20 from the Tories jumped ship, a new party/alliance could potentially hold its own.
The challenge for individual MPs is that the 50 seats a centrist party would hold are not the 50 seats currently held by the centrist MPs who might jump ship. So there'd be a fair amount of career suicide.
Still, it's not unthinkable. Chuka Umunna's Streatham seat is not necessarily nailed-on Corbynite Labour. PB posters need no reminder of Broxtowe's marginal status. And if I were a Remain Tory MP, I'd be seriously considering my options after this week's shenanigans - the ERG are indulged while the Remainers are threatened with apocalyptic consequences.
It would be a leap in the dark, but then isn't all politics like that right now?
One thing that might make a substantial difference is if Hypothetical New Party was essentially based around a Rebadged LibDem Party and grabbed all their MPs, party structure, activists, headquarters etc. With some heavyweight Conservative and Labour names on the frontbench to round it off, but coming with that kind of backing, they would at least clear the basic hurdle of parliamentary entry that the Greens/UKIP/Referendum Party found so challenging.
The downside is that the party may look like the old Lib Dem after an election, if its ex-Tories and Labourites lost their seats to their old parties.
But, would get slaughtered at a subsequent general election.
I am not sure that is true any more.
The Labour brand is anti-Semitic.
The Tory brand is fuck-business.
If another Party can't beat either of those, they shouldn't be in politics.
That, though, isn't true. The VAST majority pay very little attention. They either vote for their Party in the way they have always done (like supporting a team), or on "feeling" simply liking/disliking the leader or message presented at election time. Most won't even know what anti-Semitism is. Some who do will heartily approve. Few will have heard of Boris' comments, or considered that they are a repudiation of much Conservative tradition. FPTP makes this a very high bar for any new Party to jump.
The problem is, any fracture in the party system will be reactive rather than proactive. Those of us paying close attention see this stuff and are aware of the idiocy and repugnance it is likely to entail - the wider public won't be until they actually see the results. A new party would find fertile ground after a botched Brexit and a failure either in government, or in opposition by Corbyn's Labour - but only when they have been empirically discredited.
A new UK third party would need to concentrate the whole '81 to '88 experience of the SDP into a few months. #1 All defecting MPs caucus with the Lib Dems in Parliament. #2 The Lib Dems drop the word Liberal fromntheir day to day name and become The Democrats. They keep yellowish but a new shade and drop the Bird logo for something new. The party's constitutional name remains the Social and Liberal Democrats. #3 Then all defecting MP's take the Democratic Whip, join party, defecting members of other parties sign up. #4 Cable stands down and new expanded membership elects new leader.
You can't reinvent the wheel. You need to learn the big strategic lessons of the Alliance and do it all in a few months not 7 years.
A new UK third party would need to concentrate the whole '81 to '88 experience of the SDP into a few months. #1 All defecting MPs caucus with the Lib Dems in Parliament. #2 The Lib Dems drop the word Liberal fromntheir day to day name and become The Democrats. They keep yellowish but a new shade and drop the Bird logo for something new. The party's constitutional name remains the Social and Liberal Democrats. #3 Then all defecting MP's take the Democratic Whip, join party, defecting members of other parties sign up. #4 Cable stands down and new expanded membership elects new leader.
You can't reinvent the wheel. You need to learn the big strategic lessons of the Alliance and do it all in a few months not 7 years.
Something along those lines is pretty much what I was thinking of, but there may be some issues with the "expanded membership" having control over leadership/policy. If they try to go the same mass-entry route that Labour have done, they won't be able to control the makeup of their new membership and it may end up not at all reflecting the composition of ex-LD, Lab and Con MPs. It may therefore be unwise for the membership to have all the democratic powers over policy that the Lib Dems have traditionally liked.
Alternative option is enough Labour MP's declare UDI from the Labour Party to become the official opposition. Using the enormous incumbency power that status gives a new party is then reverse engineered to support the new group.
But in either senario what's crucial is that a new centre party isn't actually a new centre party. New parties are just too much hard work to set up under FPTP. You need to start with the bits you've akready got. The structures of the Lib Dems and the vast bulk of moderate Labour MPs.
Alternative option is enough Labour MP's declare UDI from the Labour Party to become the official opposition. Using the enormous incumbency power that status gives a new party is then reverse engineered to support the new group.
But in either senario what's crucial is that a new centre party isn't actually a new centre party. New parties are just too much hard work to set up under FPTP. You need to start with the bits you've akready got. The structures of the Lib Dems and the vast bulk of moderate Labour MPs.
I don't think there are really that many Labour MPs even if you had the ones who would consider it but pull back for worry about election chances. A large part of the Labour parties reluctance under Corbyn was because they were worried about his electoral performance, which was taken away as a consideration after he faced an election.
Those that would split for ideological reasons probably number in the tens and would not be enough to replace Labour as the opposition.
The new centre party, to even govern as the largest party would need to win seats numbering in the hundreds. I can't see the Labour party being discredited to any great extent as they are in opposition so I would imagine the majority of their support stays.
The best way I see it advancing (anytime soon) is if the Tories are very discredited due to Brexit and large numbers switch to it from the Tories possibly to stop Labour.
Edit: A big problem as well is some of those who might want the split do live in very pro Corbyn areas, so even some of those who would want it would most likely be doing a suicidal (some might suggest pointless) attack.
Edit 2: Getting the SNP and PC backing would help quite a bit, make it a decent sized group even with low tens defections from Labour and CON.
Comments
Tories can't support the government, but won't quit.
If the sensible MPs on both sides banded together they could rout the headbangers at both ends.
But they won't
Or is ad hominem the best that you can manage?
Just do a google search for African countries un happy with EU trade deals. Do not get me started on the EU nicking their fish and starving the local population.
But, would get slaughtered at a subsequent general election.
There is something binding them all together, and it is tribalism. There were always some Tories who belonged in UKIP, based on purported ideologies (and now the Tory position with the most support is no deal or hard brexit they are in the ascendancy however), and there are people in Labour who based on their purported ideologies don't look like they fit any more either, but having put so much time and effort into the party they always justify staying. Big tent party, all parties are coalitions and all that.
A realignment of party politics would make so much more sense than the contortions each goes through at present. But inertia is so strong it keeps them all in place. Fear of the other lot succeeding keeps them all in place.
And it is what the public wants. Compromise is punished. Lack of extreme positioning is punished. There is no desire for a centrist option, even if people say they want one - our actions as the public demonstrate it to be so.
And any split party would suffer. It would be analysed for how many former Tories or Labour or LDs it had, who it really was, and not enough Labour or Tory or LD voters would back it because it's got that Anna Soubry in it, or Chuka Umunna. They've all spent too long saying how bad the other lot are they couldn't sustain it either, even if they agree on more than their respective leaderships they will have stayed loyal on some major votes they didn't like and the other would constantly have that thrown in their face. He voted for X, how could you be in the same party, etc etc.
A nice dream though.
If Remainers, of which I am one, had focussed on the boring minutiae of policy, rather than grandstanding demos, and moaning about lying and cheating, we may be in a more coherent position now.
Or not.
The Labour brand is anti-Semitic.
The Tory brand is fuck-business.
If another Party can't beat either of those, they shouldn't be in politics.
I may need to work on condensing my political expression.
Whether those ministers should be sacked or resign or not.
She must be so disappointed that the voters voted to sack her in the referendum.
If such a grouping had a good leader, then it would not get slaughtered at a subsequent general election.
Problem is that there aren’t any around right now.
Yet, the Alliance still crashed and burned.
Often when it gets reported even the suggested name is terrible.
And after the last few days I think we should all have a good nights rest
As of now TM is the great survivor and has a lot to thank her whips office for
Good night one and all
Edit: based on my laughter-count, also one of the funniest posters on PB. Definitely funniest-per-word. He is PB God-Emperor of the Litotes.
The VAST majority pay very little attention.
They either vote for their Party in the way they have always done (like supporting a team), or on "feeling" simply liking/disliking the leader or message presented at election time.
Most won't even know what anti-Semitism is. Some who do will heartily approve.
Few will have heard of Boris' comments, or considered that they are a repudiation of much Conservative tradition.
FPTP makes this a very high bar for any new Party to jump.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
You can’t be a weak autocrat. His Helsinki performance looked weak, and then a day later reversing himself while trying to explain it all as a slip of the tongue just makes him see weaker.
If his ratings were already slipping pre Helsinki, Mike’s bet against his renomination is starting to look very shrewd.
1) Leaving the EU
2) Doing so after a second referendum
What's happening with the planned early holiday for MPs? Given we're nearly in holiday season it could proceed with little attention but it could also be the final straw if the public pay attention. Giving MPs longer holidays is the sort of thing that irritates voters, to do so in the middle of the current convulsions seems madness. I can only assume they are gambling that most people won't notice. If they do there could be hell to pay.
With the proviso that anything could happen post-Brexit, a result equal to the Lib Dems in 2005 or 2010 (i.e. 60ish seats) should be achievable at the least: i.e. it's been demonstrated in living memory that's within reach of a credible centrist party.
So if (say) 30 from Labour and 20 from the Tories jumped ship, a new party/alliance could potentially hold its own.
The challenge for individual MPs is that the 50 seats a centrist party would hold are not the 50 seats currently held by the centrist MPs who might jump ship. So there'd be a fair amount of career suicide.
Still, it's not unthinkable. Chuka Umunna's Streatham seat is not necessarily nailed-on Corbynite Labour. PB posters need no reminder of Broxtowe's marginal status. And if I were a Remain Tory MP, I'd be seriously considering my options after this week's shenanigans - the ERG are indulged while the Remainers are threatened with apocalyptic consequences.
It would be a leap in the dark, but then isn't all politics like that right now?
The downside is that the party may look like the old Lib Dem after an election, if its ex-Tories and Labourites lost their seats to their old parties.
You can't reinvent the wheel. You need to learn the big strategic lessons of the Alliance and do it all in a few months not 7 years.
But in either senario what's crucial is that a new centre party isn't actually a new centre party. New parties are just too much hard work to set up under FPTP. You need to start with the bits you've akready got. The structures of the Lib Dems and the vast bulk of moderate Labour MPs.
Those that would split for ideological reasons probably number in the tens and would not be enough to replace Labour as the opposition.
The new centre party, to even govern as the largest party would need to win seats numbering in the hundreds. I can't see the Labour party being discredited to any great extent as they are in opposition so I would imagine the majority of their support stays.
The best way I see it advancing (anytime soon) is if the Tories are very discredited due to Brexit and large numbers switch to it from the Tories possibly to stop Labour.
Edit: A big problem as well is some of those who might want the split do live in very pro Corbyn areas, so even some of those who would want it would most likely be doing a suicidal (some might suggest pointless) attack.
Edit 2: Getting the SNP and PC backing would help quite a bit, make it a decent sized group even with low tens defections from Labour and CON.