politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The DUP would be taking a big gamble defying Northern Ireland’

HYUFD said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Are the DUP serious ? Could they not just be bought on Vote 2 onwards ? I mean serious eye watering cash ?

On anything that makes the union weaker, the catchphrase is never x 4. They will never x 50 trust Jeremy Corbyn. Their supporters would show him even less trust.

Their backing of Brexit is the most inexplicable strategic error by any political party in my lifetime.

Their voters want it.

The endlessly repeated 'NI voted Remain' is a generaliseation that misses the point.

SF, SDLP Alliance voted Remain. DUP and UUP voters were LEAVE.

The header article is wrong.

The DUP exist to keep Northern Ireland in the union. Backing Brexit has imperilled that in a way no other development has for a generation. It was a ridiculous blunder.

Only if MrsMay's 'Deal' is accepted.

NODEAL preserves the Union. And may well generate a fair bit of Us and Them with the EU given their likely behaviour. Solidarity will be useful.

'NODEAL preserves the Union.' I cannot believe you can write such rubbish.

Not only does No Deal give the SNP their best ever chance for a Yes vote to independence it also means a hard border in Ireland hugely increasing the momentum for Irish Unity

Yeah that will be why the DUP and Scottish Tories strongly support this deal, while Sinn Fein are vehemently against it right?

Oh wait, no you've got it 100% arse over tit. Sinn Fein love the deal and the DUP and Scottish Tories hate it - and the SNP are only pissed off they haven't got what Sinn Fein got. The backstop kills the union.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1063930593606582273

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

alex. said:

If a new Tory leader comes in on a platform of pursuing no deal (which they will have to after about 1 meeting with the EU) then i suspect a vote of confidence will be called in the HoC, and they will lose.

Yes, I expect Soubry, Grieve etc will no confidence a Tory PM installed after a coup to oust May and go for No Deal, though I think May survives anyway, her opponents do not have the numbers to no confidence her

Grieve opposes May's plan. Moreover there are far more MPs willing to No Confidence May than there would be to No Confidence a successor that has been chosen by the party.

I meant a formal no confidence vote in the Commons, not an internal no confidence vote in the Tory Party. Grieve may oppose May's deal, but that is because he supports Remain. I doubt he thinks May's deal is in the same league as no deal, in its economic consequences for the country.

alex. said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Are the DUP serious ? Could they not just be bought on Vote 2 onwards ? I mean serious eye watering cash ?

On anything that makes the union weaker, the catchphrase is never x 4. They will never x 50 trust Jeremy Corbyn. Their supporters would show him even less trust.

Their backing of Brexit is the most inexplicable strategic error by any political party in my lifetime.

Their voters want it.

The endlessly repeated 'NI voted Remain' is a generaliseation that misses the point.

SF, SDLP Alliance voted Remain. DUP and UUP voters were LEAVE.

The header article is wrong.

The DUP exist to keep Northern Ireland in the union. Backing Brexit has imperilled that in a way no other development has for a generation. It was a ridiculous blunder.

Only MrsMay 'Deal' is accepted.

NODEAL preserves the Union. And may well generate a fair bit of Us and Them with the EU given their likely behaviour. Solidarity will be useful.

Erm in your Brexit insanity you miss the point. The DUP took a wholly avoidable risk at long odds in pursuit of a subsidiary prejudice. It’s playing out badly for them. This was entirely predictable.

Meanwhile the Northern Irish have learned just how little English nationalists care about them. Regardless of how this plays out now, the Northern Irish are going to be looking to their options in a way they never previously did.

You clearly haven't been looking at how tight the mogg&co are with the DUP.

The 'wholly avoidable risk' has placed them as the kingmakers for probably 5y in the UK parliament. Such is 'playing out badly'

Given your condition, madness is unavoidable I suppose. Oh well

52:48

Er, and then what happens when the "5y" are up?

5y of NODEAL divergence will sort that out.

I should think both Leavers and Remainers can agree with that...

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

Tory MPs are also i suspect missing that the uncertainty is finally beginning to impact on ordinary people's lives. I have had conversations with people at work who are starting to discuss things like holidays next year, and how they can't plan ahead on their usual timescales, and the idea that this can go on for much longer, even theoretically right up to the wire on 31st March is for those away with the fairies. People are increasingly going to start getting very angry. God only knows what they would think of the Tories taking a couple of months out to have a leadership contest.

The message of the polls is strong - people still support May as the best option and don't want her to go.

The last Conservative leadership election took a couple of weeks, not a couple of months.

So you expect a single overwhelming candidate to emerge, and the second stage vote bypassed? I suppose it's possible...

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

The last Conservative leadership election coronation took a couple of weeks, not a couple of months.

Fixed

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Are the DUP serious ? Could they not just be bought on Vote 2 onwards ? I mean serious eye watering cash ?

On anything that makes the union weaker, the catchphrase is never x 4. They will never x 50 trust Jeremy Corbyn. Their supporters would show him even less trust.

Their backing of Brexit is the most inexplicable strategic error by any political party in my lifetime.

Their voters want it.

The endlessly repeated 'NI voted Remain' is a generaliseation that misses the point.

SF, SDLP Alliance voted Remain. DUP and UUP voters were LEAVE.

The header article is wrong.

The DUP exist to keep Northern Ireland in the union. Backing Brexit has imperilled that in a way no other development has for a generation. It was a ridiculous blunder.

Only MrsMay 'Deal' is accepted.

NODEAL preserves the Union. And may well generate a fair bit of Us and Them with the EU given their likely behaviour. Solidarity will be useful.

Erm in your Brexit insanity you miss the point. The DUP took a wholly avoidable risk at long odds in pursuit of a subsidiary prejudice. It’s playing out badly for them. This was entirely predictable.

Meanwhile the Northern Irish have learned just how little English nationalists care about them. Regardless of how this plays out now, the Northern Irish are going to be looking to their options in a way they never previously did.

You clearly haven't been looking at how tight the mogg&co are with the DUP.

The 'wholly avoidable risk' has placed them as the kingmakers for probably 5y in the UK parliament. Such is 'playing out badly'

Given your condition, madness is unavoidable I suppose. Oh well

52:48

You think the Northern Irish (NB not the DUP) haven’t noticed that Leavers are willing to see Northern Ireland go up in flames to secure Brexit? Irish unity has never looked closer. The DUP exist to ensure the opposite. They have walked into a strategic disaster.

Interesting: you obviously missed Varadkar dail statement the other day.

He reiterated: The DUP has to agree for any change to NI status under the GFA.

No doubt your discovery of the 'Strategic Disaster' will change everything

52:48

Since the DUP opposed the Good Friday Agreement in the first place, the DUP unsurprisingly have no veto on any change to it. What’s the next idiocy you’re going to put forward?

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

Tory MPs are also i suspect missing that the uncertainty is finally beginning to impact on ordinary people's lives. I have had conversations with people at work who are starting to discuss things like holidays next year, and how they can't plan ahead on their usual timescales, and the idea that this can go on for much longer, even theoretically right up to the wire on 31st March is for those away with the fairies. People are increasingly going to start getting very angry. God only knows what they would think of the Tories taking a couple of months out to have a leadership contest.

The message of the polls is strong - people still support May as the best option and don't want her to go.

The last Conservative leadership election took a couple of weeks, not a couple of months.

But that was because one of the final two, Leadsom, withdrew. Had she not done so it would have taken much longer.

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

There was no vote

There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.

Y0kel said:

The people of NI decide.

Indeed. As far as I can see, with the devolved Government suspended there is no legal reason why the UK Government couldn't call a referendum on reunification in NI if they felt there was the public desire for one in the province. The DUP could very easily make themselves utterly irrelevant in that process if they follow a course opposed by the large majority of the province.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

There was no vote

There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.

The scheduled close of the 2016 Election was 9th September. Leadsom withdrew on 11th July.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Y0kel said:

The people of NI decide.

Indeed. As far as I can see, with the devolved Government suspended there is no legal reason why the UK Government couldn't call a referendum on reunification in NI if they felt there was the public desire for one in the province. The DUP could very easily make themselves utterly irrelevant in that process if they follow a course opposed by the large majority of the province.

With or without devolved government, there’s an obligation on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to call a referendum if he or she considers it likely that one would pass.

@Yokel

The people of NI decide.

--------------------
Quite. I guess their majority party will have influence, possibly decisively.

I was simplifying for young meeks

shiney2 said:

@Yokel

The people of NI decide.

--------------------
Quite. I guess their majority party will have influence, possibly decisively.

I was simplifying for young meeks

Which majority party would that be?

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YellowSubmarine said:

On anything that makes the union weaker, the catchphrase is never x 4. They will never x 50 trust Jeremy Corbyn. Their supporters would show him even less trust.

Their backing of Brexit is the most inexplicable strategic error by any political party in my lifetime.

Their voters want it.

The endlessly repeated 'NI voted Remain' is a generaliseation that misses the point.

SF, SDLP Alliance voted Remain. DUP and UUP voters were LEAVE.

The header article is wrong.

The DUP exist to keep Northern Ireland in the union. Backing Brexit has imperilled that in a way no other development has for a generation. It was a ridiculous blunder.

Only MrsMay 'Deal' is accepted.

NODEAL preserves the Union. And may well generate a fair bit of Us and Them with the EU given their likely behaviour. Solidarity will be useful.

Erm in your Brexit insanity you miss the point. The DUP took a wholly avoidable risk at long odds in pursuit of a subsidiary prejudice. It’s playing out badly for them. This was entirely predictable.

Meanwhile the Northern Irish have learned just how little English nationalists care about them. Regardless of how this plays out now, the Northern Irish are going to be looking to their options in a way they never previously did.

You clearly haven't been looking at how tight the mogg&co are with the DUP.

The 'wholly avoidable risk' has placed them as the kingmakers for probably 5y in the UK parliament. Such is 'playing out badly'

Given your condition, madness is unavoidable I suppose. Oh well

52:48

You think the Northern Irish (NB not the DUP) haven’t noticed that Leavers are willing to see Northern Ireland go up in flames to secure Brexit? Irish unity has never looked closer. The DUP exist to ensure the opposite. They have walked into a strategic disaster.

Interesting: you obviously missed Varadkar dail statement the other day.

He reiterated: The DUP has to agree for any change to NI status under the GFA.

No doubt your discovery of the 'Strategic Disaster' will change everything

52:48

Varadkar actually said the draft withdrawal agreement "states in black and white" that Ireland and the EU fully respect the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as part of the UK.

"This can only change if the majority of people in Northern Ireland want it to," he said.

In which he is correct; the DUP have no veto.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/1114/1010778-government-brexit/

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

There was no vote

There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.

The scheduled close of the 2016 Election was 9th September. Leadsom withdrew on 11th July.

Yes but that was because the 1922 had a fairly relaxed timetable over the summer parliamentary recess. The MP voting stage took two weeks, which could easily be condensed. Even if the party in the country were to be consulted, and I doubt it will be, there is no need for that part to take more than a week.

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

There was no vote

There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.

The scheduled close of the 2016 Election was 9th September. Leadsom withdrew on 11th July.

Yes but that was because the 1922 had a fairly relaxed timetable over the summer parliamentary recess. The MP voting stage took two weeks, which could easily be condensed. Even if the party in the country were to be consulted, and I doubt it will be, there is no need for that part to take more than a week.

Why do you doubt the party in the country would be consulted?

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

There was no vote

There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.

The scheduled close of the 2016 Election was 9th September. Leadsom withdrew on 11th July.

Yes but that was because the 1922 had a fairly relaxed timetable over the summer parliamentary recess. The MP voting stage took two weeks, which could easily be condensed. Even if the party in the country were to be consulted, and I doubt it will be, there is no need for that part to take more than a week.

A week? Given that the members are consulted by post? Both ways? Just before Christmas?
With no time for hustings and debate about the most serious PM selection since 1940?
Seems optimistic.

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

There was no vote

There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.

The scheduled close of the 2016 Election was 9th September. Leadsom withdrew on 11th July.

Yes but that was because the 1922 had a fairly relaxed timetable over the summer parliamentary recess. The MP voting stage took two weeks, which could easily be condensed. Even if the party in the country were to be consulted, and I doubt it will be, there is no need for that part to take more than a week.

Ignoring the fact that giving people a week at short notice would make (even more of) a farce of the whole election process (and effectively disenfranchise large numbers of members who just weren't available in the tiny window you've given them to vote), have you remembered to potentially factor in the Christmas post to this absurd timetable?

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

@Yokel

The people of NI decide.

--------------------
Quite. I guess their majority party will have influence, possibly decisively.

I was simplifying for young meeks

Which majority party would that be?

NI

There is no majority party in Northern Ireland. In the more proportional assembly election, the largest party commands just over a quarter of the vote.

But like all Brexiteers, facts are just an inconvenient impediment to the desired argument for you.

The majority party representing NI in the UK parliament is the DUP.

Ability to count up to 10 will suffice.

52:48

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

@Yokel

The people of NI decide.

--------------------
Quite. I guess their majority party will have influence, possibly decisively.

I was simplifying for young meeks

Which majority party would that be?

NI

There is no majority party in Northern Ireland. In the more proportional assembly election, the largest party commands just over a quarter of the vote.

But like all Brexiteers, facts are just an inconvenient impediment to the desired argument for you.

The majority party representing NI in the UK parliament is the DUP.

Ability to count up to 10 will suffice.

52:48 37:36

Must be hard to see your Brexit slipping away Shiney

DecrepitJohnL said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

There was no vote

There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.

The scheduled close of the 2016 Election was 9th September. Leadsom withdrew on 11th July.

Yes but that was because the 1922 had a fairly relaxed timetable over the summer parliamentary recess. The MP voting stage took two weeks, which could easily be condensed. Even if the party in the country were to be consulted, and I doubt it will be, there is no need for that part to take more than a week.

Why do you doubt the party in the country would be consulted?

Because the party is in government, at a time of some political moment when it is important to establish a new Prime Minister as quickly as possible, so unless the MPs vote was neck-and-neck, the runner-up would likely stand down (as happened last time).

In which case another Remainer will become the next PM.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

There was no vote

There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.

The scheduled close of the 2016 Election was 9th September. Leadsom withdrew on 11th July.

Yes but that was because the 1922 had a fairly relaxed timetable over the summer parliamentary recess. The MP voting stage took two weeks, which could easily be condensed. Even if the party in the country were to be consulted, and I doubt it will be, there is no need for that part to take more than a week.

Why do you doubt the party in the country would be consulted?

Because the party is in government, at a time of some political moment when it is important to establish a new Prime Minister as quickly as possible, so unless the MPs vote was neck-and-neck, the runner-up would likely stand down (as happened last time).

The chances of one person having over 50% of the Parliamentary party backing them are not high in current circumstances.


Javid comes first (130 votes), Boris comes second (100 votes), Hunt comes third (70 votes).

Boris stands down? You think?

DecrepitJohnL said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

There was no vote

There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.

The scheduled close of the 2016 Election was 9th September. Leadsom withdrew on 11th July.

Yes but that was because the 1922 had a fairly relaxed timetable over the summer parliamentary recess. The MP voting stage took two weeks, which could easily be condensed. Even if the party in the country were to be consulted, and I doubt it will be, there is no need for that part to take more than a week.

Why do you doubt the party in the country would be consulted?

Because the party is in government, at a time of some political moment when it is important to establish a new Prime Minister as quickly as possible, so unless the MPs vote was neck-and-neck, the runner-up would likely stand down (as happened last time).

As quickly as possible. Or as thoroughly, carefully, openly and democratically, within the Conservative Party as possible?

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

There was no vote

There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.

The scheduled close of the 2016 Election was 9th September. Leadsom withdrew on 11th July.

Yes but that was because the 1922 had a fairly relaxed timetable over the summer parliamentary recess. The MP voting stage took two weeks, which could easily be condensed. Even if the party in the country were to be consulted, and I doubt it will be, there is no need for that part to take more than a week.

Ignoring the fact that giving people a week at short notice would make (even more of) a farce of the whole election process (and effectively disenfranchise large numbers of members who just weren't available in the tiny window you've given them to vote), have you remembered to potentially factor in the Christmas post to this absurd timetable?

Some people will be on holiday, yes. Oh dear; what a shame; never mind. Give the members a fortnight if you must by holding more than two ballots of MPs a week.

Last time the whole procedure took a fortnight. It took a week in 2003, when again the matter was not put to the membership. To pretend two months is needed is absurd.

dixiedean said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

There was no vote

There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.

The scheduled close of the 2016 Election was 9th September. Leadsom withdrew on 11th July.

Yes but that was because the 1922 had a fairly relaxed timetable over the summer parliamentary recess. The MP voting stage took two weeks, which could easily be condensed. Even if the party in the country were to be consulted, and I doubt it will be, there is no need for that part to take more than a week.

Why do you doubt the party in the country would be consulted?

Because the party is in government, at a time of some political moment when it is important to establish a new Prime Minister as quickly as possible, so unless the MPs vote was neck-and-neck, the runner-up would likely stand down (as happened last time).

As quickly as possible. Or as thoroughly, carefully, openly and democratically, within the Conservative Party as possible?

Two of the last three elections did not go to the membership at all (Howard and May).

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

There was no vote

There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.

The scheduled close of the 2016 Election was 9th September. Leadsom withdrew on 11th July.

Yes but that was because the 1922 had a fairly relaxed timetable over the summer parliamentary recess. The MP voting stage took two weeks, which could easily be condensed. Even if the party in the country were to be consulted, and I doubt it will be, there is no need for that part to take more than a week.

Why do you doubt the party in the country would be consulted?

Because the party is in government, at a time of some political moment when it is important to establish a new Prime Minister as quickly as possible, so unless the MPs vote was neck-and-neck, the runner-up would likely stand down (as happened last time).

As quickly as possible. Or as thoroughly, carefully, openly and democratically, within the Conservative Party as possible?

Having a leadership election at this time will baffle many across the country and look particularly self-indulgent.

Brexit has already baffled the country. A leadership election will not add greatly, or at all, to its befuddlement.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1063930593606582273

OK! See the figures, but how many Conservative voters will actually turn up to put a cross on the ballot paper with TMay in charge. Or BlowJob, JRM or anyone else in the running. Too many have been tarred with the TMay brush to be considered "clean"

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

There was no vote

There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.

The scheduled close of the 2016 Election was 9th September. Leadsom withdrew on 11th July.

Yes but that was because the 1922 had a fairly relaxed timetable over the summer parliamentary recess. The MP voting stage took two weeks, which could easily be condensed. Even if the party in the country were to be consulted, and I doubt it will be, there is no need for that part to take more than a week.

Ignoring the fact that giving people a week at short notice would make (even more of) a farce of the whole election process (and effectively disenfranchise large numbers of members who just weren't available in the tiny window you've given them to vote), have you remembered to potentially factor in the Christmas post to this absurd timetable?

Some people will be on holiday, yes. Oh dear; what a shame; never mind. Give the members a fortnight if you must by holding more than two ballots of MPs a week.

Last time the whole procedure took a fortnight. It took a week in 2003, when again the matter was not put to the membership. To pretend two months is needed is absurd.

Frankly a month would make people angry enough.

The only people angered would be Theresa May's supporters who pretend it will take months to replace her even though it took just two weeks to install her.

A warning for theTories of what happens when you empower the headbangers:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/17/rip-california-gop-republicans-lash-out-after-midterm-election-debacle-1000481

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

There was no vote

There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.

The scheduled close of the 2016 Election was 9th September. Leadsom withdrew on 11th July.

Yes but that was because the 1922 had a fairly relaxed timetable over the summer parliamentary recess. The MP voting stage took two weeks, which could easily be condensed. Even if the party in the country were to be consulted, and I doubt it will be, there is no need for that part to take more than a week.

Ignoring the fact that giving people a week at short notice would make (even more of) a farce of the whole election process (and effectively disenfranchise large numbers of members who just weren't available in the tiny window you've given them to vote), have you remembered to potentially factor in the Christmas post to this absurd timetable?

Some people will be on holiday, yes. Oh dear; what a shame; never mind. Give the members a fortnight if you must by holding more than two ballots of MPs a week.

Last time the whole procedure took a fortnight. It took a week in 2003, when again the matter was not put to the membership. To pretend two months is needed is absurd.

Frankly a month would make people angry enough.

The only people angered would be Theresa May's supporters who pretend it will take months to replace her even though it took just two weeks to install her.

It's got nothing to do with "May's supporters". The point is that the public are going to get increasingly angry about the fact that they are completely in the dark about what is happening post March next year, and the prospect of the Tories self indulgently seeking to increase the delay to resolving that uncertainty by a month (+the time after that when a new leader sets out to 'reset' the negotiations and start again) out of the 4 in total that remain is not going to improve their mood on this point.

Zac goldsmith is calling for May to go now.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Zac goldsmith is calling for May to go now.

Wonder if he'll get as much as 25% of the vote in Richmond next time around?

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

There was no vote

There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.

The scheduled close of the 2016 Election was 9th September. Leadsom withdrew on 11th July.

Yes but that was because the 1922 had a fairly relaxed timetable over the summer parliamentary recess. The MP voting stage took two weeks, which could easily be condensed. Even if the party in the country were to be consulted, and I doubt it will be, there is no need for that part to take more than a week.

Ignoring the fact that giving people a week at short notice would make (even more of) a farce of the whole election process (and effectively disenfranchise large numbers of members who just weren't available in the tiny window you've given them to vote), have you remembered to potentially factor in the Christmas post to this absurd timetable?

Some people will be on holiday, yes. Oh dear; what a shame; never mind. Give the members a fortnight if you must by holding more than two ballots of MPs a week.

Last time the whole procedure took a fortnight. It took a week in 2003, when again the matter was not put to the membership. To pretend two months is needed is absurd.

Frankly a month would make people angry enough.

The only people angered would be Theresa May's supporters who pretend it will take months to replace her even though it took just two weeks to install her.

It's got nothing to do with "May's supporters". .

Yes, which is why it will not take a month. That's where I came in.

Coronation is not easy when there is no consensus on who should take over. What is sauce for the Leaver is poison to the pragmatist. The chance of the second placed deferring to the first is slim for this reason.

If consensus was easy, we would have had agreement on Brexit. We clearly do not.

FrancisUrquhart said:

https://twitter.com/allisonpearson/status/1063351736973369344?s=21

Huge difference between the typical reader and the BTL commentariat. Quite how worked up the typical Mail reader is about Brexit I'm not sure, but one third of Mail voters voted Remain after everything the Mail told them, and judging from that one presumes a good chunk of the Leave voters were weak or soft Leave. I would not be swayed by the argument that secular trends in decreasing dead-tree readership represent Disgusted of Brexbridge Wells using their wallet to express their view on the paper's editorial line.

(The Sun and Express still only had 70% Leave, and the Torygraph a surprisingly balanced 55%, which makes their headbanger position on Brexit look somewhat out of touch with their readership.)

alex. said:

Well you've already got it taking 3 weeks (Christmas post being ignored) with a sham election where no individual has got time to be truly scrutinised, or shorter if, inconceivably the parliamentary party that is split at least three ways, manages to agree overwhelmingly on a single individual and, presumably a Brexiteer, because i can't see a Brexiteer dropping out if a remainer comes first given that they will expect to win with the membership...

(Internal quotes deleted to meet Vanilla's ludicrous length restrictions.)

Two of the last three elections did not go to the membership. They took one and two weeks respectively, and that is with the leisurely pace of two MPs' ballots a week. A ballot of members could take a week, or certainly two, but I doubt they'd be consulted anyway. And, although this is really a separate point, since hardline Brexiteers can't conjure up 48 letters to force a vote of no confidence, it is reasonable to doubt they'll get one of their number into the final two.

Incidentally its hardly a ringing endorsement for May that the best line that can be used against ousting her is 'there isn't time' and not 'she's doing a good job'.

viewcode said:

Philip_Thompson said:

We need a new leader who has the authority to go to the EU and say some home truths and mean it.

"We send a plurality of our exports to you and if we don't get a deal things are going to go badly wrong. My colleagues are dumb as fuck or actively malevolent and we're running out of time. Heeeelp?"

Hometruth enough?

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

dixiedean said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Benpointer said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

There was no vote

There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.

The scheduled close of the 2016 Election was 9th September. Leadsom withdrew on 11th July.

Yes but that was because the 1922 had a fairly relaxed timetable over the summer parliamentary recess. The MP voting stage took two weeks, which could easily be condensed. Even if the party in the country were to be consulted, and I doubt it will be, there is no need for that part to take more than a week.

Why do you doubt the party in the country would be consulted?

Because the party is in government, at a time of some political moment when it is important to establish a new Prime Minister as quickly as possible, so unless the MPs vote was neck-and-neck, the runner-up would likely stand down (as happened last time).

As quickly as possible. Or as thoroughly, carefully, openly and democratically, within the Conservative Party as possible?

Having a leadership election at this time will baffle many across the country and look particularly self-indulgent.

People have said that for months and in the meantime time has ticked away and we're no closer to an 'acceptable' deal.

We need a new leader who has the authority to go to the EU and say some home truths and mean it. That leader needs electing. The sooner that happens, the more time they have to reach an acceptable 11th hour deal.

The only home truths being told would be by the EU with a 'sod off' it is the agreed deal or no deal and if no deal it will hurt you more than it hurts us

DecrepitJohnL said:

alex. said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

That may be true of the Howard coronation but the 2016 leadership election also took just a fortnight.

There was no vote

There was no vote apart from the vote of MPs, you mean? It is true that the party in the country did not vote, and I expect that will be true again. Even if it is not, it is hard to see why sending and receiving postal ballots would add six weeks to the contest. Six days, maybe.

The scheduled close of the 2016 Election was 9th September. Leadsom withdrew on 11th July.

Yes but that was because the 1922 had a fairly relaxed timetable over the summer parliamentary recess. The MP voting stage took two weeks, which could easily be condensed. Even if the party in the country were to be consulted, and I doubt it will be, there is no need for that part to take more than a week.

The MP voting stage can only be condensed if the rules are changed. The rules stipulate two votes a week on Tuesdays and Thursdays with the candidate gaining fewest votes knocked out after each round until there are only two candidates left. So, unless some candidates drop out voluntarily, how long it takes depends on how many candidates are nominated.

There is then a ballot of members, the rules for which are set by the party board in consultation with the executive committee of the 1922 Committee. If it goes to the members it is unrealistic to expect that ballot to take place in 1 or 2 weeks.

HYUFD said:

shiney2 said:

Benpointer said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

@Yokel

The people of NI decide.

--------------------
Quite. I guess their majority party will have influence, possibly decisively.

I was simplifying for young meeks

Which majority party would that be?

NI

There is no majority party in Northern Ireland. In the more proportional assembly election, the largest party commands just over a quarter of the vote.

But like all Brexiteers, facts are just an inconvenient impediment to the desired argument for you.

The majority party representing NI in the UK parliament is the DUP.

Ability to count up to 10 will suffice.

52:48 37:36

Must be hard to see your Brexit slipping away Shiney

NODEAL is IDEAL

Its the law..

No Deal leads to economic disaster and the potential breakup of the UK

So could sun spots.

Care to furnish some proof?

shiney2 said:

HYUFD said:

shiney2 said:

Benpointer said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

@Yokel

The people of NI decide.

--------------------
Quite. I guess their majority party will have influence, possibly decisively.

I was simplifying for young meeks

Which majority party would that be?

NI

There is no majority party in Northern Ireland. In the more proportional assembly election, the largest party commands just over a quarter of the vote.

But like all Brexiteers, facts are just an inconvenient impediment to the desired argument for you.

The majority party representing NI in the UK parliament is the DUP.

Ability to count up to 10 will suffice.

52:48 37:36

Must be hard to see your Brexit slipping away Shiney

NODEAL is IDEAL

Its the law..

No Deal leads to economic disaster and the potential breakup of the UK

So could sun spots.

Care to furnish some proof?

Um, how could sunspots break up the UK? Did you mean solar flares?

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Are the DUP serious ? Could they not just be bought on Vote 2 onwards ? I mean serious eye watering cash ?

On anything that makes the union weaker, the catchphrase is never x 4. They will never x 50 trust Jeremy Corbyn. Their supporters would show him even less trust.

Their backing of Brexit is the most inexplicable strategic error by any political party in my lifetime.

Their voters want it.

The endlessly repeated 'NI voted Remain' is a generaliseation that misses the point.

SF, SDLP Alliance voted Remain. DUP and UUP voters were LEAVE.

The header article is wrong.

The DUP exist to keep Northern Ireland in the union. Backing Brexit has imperilled that in a way no other development has for a generation. It was a ridiculous blunder.

Only if MrsMay's 'Deal' is accepted.

NODEAL preserves the Union. And may well generate a fair bit of Us and Them with the EU given their likely behaviour. Solidarity will be useful.

'NODEAL preserves the Union.' I cannot believe you can write such rubbish.

Not only does No Deal give the SNP their best ever chance for a Yes vote to independence it also means a hard border in Ireland hugely increasing the momentum for Irish Unity

Yeah that will be why the DUP and Scottish Tories strongly support this deal, while Sinn Fein are vehemently against it right?

Oh wait, no you've got it 100% arse over tit. Sinn Fein love the deal and the DUP and Scottish Tories hate it - and the SNP are only pissed off they haven't got what Sinn Fein got. The backstop kills the union.

The DUP are totally oblivious it seems to the fact Northern Ireland voted Remain, Sinn Fein do not back May's Deal, they want to reverse Brexit but they would think Christmas had come early with No Deal.

The only polls which have Yes in front in Scotland are with No Deal. You have no clue clearly on the Union

No I do have a clue about the Union which is why I pay more attention to Unionists than meaningless hypothetical polls. I couldn't care less if a poll thought magical unicorns backed Remaining it is irrelevant what the polls say.

shiney2 said:

HYUFD said:

shiney2 said:

Benpointer said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

@Yokel

The people of NI decide.

--------------------
Quite. I guess their majority party will have influence, possibly decisively.

I was simplifying for young meeks

Which majority party would that be?

NI

There is no majority party in Northern Ireland. In the more proportional assembly election, the largest party commands just over a quarter of the vote.

But like all Brexiteers, facts are just an inconvenient impediment to the desired argument for you.

The majority party representing NI in the UK parliament is the DUP.

Ability to count up to 10 will suffice.

52:48 37:36

Must be hard to see your Brexit slipping away Shiney

NODEAL is IDEAL

Its the law..

No Deal leads to economic disaster and the potential breakup of the UK

So could sun spots.

Care to furnish some proof?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/no-deal-brexit-pushes-scots-to-break-from-the-uk-shows-poll-5kkpfb2dv
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2018/10/stupefying-survation-survey-suggests.html


https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/poll-northern-ireland-voters-will-back-united-ireland-after-brexit-37275256.html


https://www.kent.ac.uk/news/society/18587/little-public-support-in-northern-ireland-for-a-no-deal-outcome-on-brexit

Even only 44% of NI Unionists back a No Deal Brexit

Fanatics like you though could not I presume care less

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

No I do have a clue about the Union which is why I pay more attention to Unionists than meaningless hypothetical polls. I couldn't care less if a poll thought magical unicorns backed Remaining it is irrelevant what the polls say.

No clearly you do not nor do you care less about it which is why you are determined to force a No Deal Brexit on Scotland and a hard border on Northern Ireland against their will

The only hard border Northern Ireland is at risk at currently is the one down the Irish Sea that Sinn Fein are salivating over: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-northern-ireland-46219457/brexit-sinn-fin-and-sdlp-welcome-draft-withdrawal-deal

Some odd unionist you are when you're on the same side as Sinn Fein and the SDLP but against the DUP and Scottish Tories.

HYUFD said:

Sinn Fein do not back May's Deal

Yes they do: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-northern-ireland-46219457/brexit-sinn-fin-and-sdlp-welcome-draft-withdrawal-deal
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-féin-gives-cautious-welcome-to-brexit-deal-but-cites-dangers-ahead-1.3320408

You're an Irish Nationalist not a unionist.

viewcode said:

shiney2 said:

HYUFD said:

shiney2 said:

Benpointer said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

@Yokel

The people of NI decide.

--------------------
Quite. I guess their majority party will have influence, possibly decisively.

I was simplifying for young meeks

Which majority party would that be?

NI

There is no majority party in Northern Ireland. In the more proportional assembly election, the largest party commands just over a quarter of the vote.

But like all Brexiteers, facts are just an inconvenient impediment to the desired argument for you.

The majority party representing NI in the UK parliament is the DUP.

Ability to count up to 10 will suffice.

52:48 37:36

Must be hard to see your Brexit slipping away Shiney

NODEAL is IDEAL

Its the law..

No Deal leads to economic disaster and the potential breakup of the UK

So could sun spots.

Care to furnish some proof?

Um, how could sunspots break up the UK? Did you mean solar flares?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDdc0-JD8Dk

shiney2 said:

HYUFD said:

shiney2 said:

HYUFD said:

shiney2 said:

Benpointer said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

shiney2 said:

@Yokel

The people of NI decide.

--------------------
Quite. I guess their majority party will have influence, possibly decisively.

I was simplifying for young meeks

Which majority party would that be?

NI

There is no majority party in Northern Ireland. In the more proportional assembly election, the largest party commands just over a quarter of the vote.

But like all Brexiteers, facts are just an inconvenient impediment to the desired argument for you.

The majority party representing NI in the UK parliament is the DUP.

Ability to count up to 10 will suffice.

52:48 37:36

Must be hard to see your Brexit slipping away Shiney

NODEAL is IDEAL

Its the law..

No Deal leads to economic disaster and the potential breakup of the UK

So could sun spots.

Care to furnish some proof?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/no-deal-brexit-pushes-scots-to-break-from-the-uk-shows-poll-5kkpfb2dv
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2018/10/stupefying-survation-survey-suggests.html


https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/poll-northern-ireland-voters-will-back-united-ireland-after-brexit-37275256.html


https://www.kent.ac.uk/news/society/18587/little-public-support-in-northern-ireland-for-a-no-deal-outcome-on-brexit

Even only 44% of NI Unionists back a No Deal Brexit

Fanatics like you though could not I presume care less

Selective polling is not proof, except of paucity of argument.

Show me contrary polling then if you are so confidence Scots and the people of Northern Ireland are full of enthusiasm for a No Deal Brexit?

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Sinn Fein do not back May's Deal

Yes they do: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-northern-ireland-46219457/brexit-sinn-fin-and-sdlp-welcome-draft-withdrawal-deal
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sinn-féin-gives-cautious-welcome-to-brexit-deal-but-cites-dangers-ahead-1.3320408

You're an Irish Nationalist not a unionist.

They welcome the avoidance of a hard border but would still prefer Remain, if you insist on a hard border you will be paving the way for a United Ireland

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

No I do have a clue about the Union which is why I pay more attention to Unionists than meaningless hypothetical polls. I couldn't care less if a poll thought magical unicorns backed Remaining it is irrelevant what the polls say.

No clearly you do not nor do you care less about it which is why you are determined to force a No Deal Brexit on Scotland and a hard border on Northern Ireland against their will

The only hard border Northern Ireland is at risk at currently is the one down the Irish Sea that Sinn Fein are salivating over: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-northern-ireland-46219457/brexit-sinn-fin-and-sdlp-welcome-draft-withdrawal-deal

Some odd unionist you are when you're on the same side as Sinn Fein and the SDLP but against the DUP and Scottish Tories.

The whole UK will be in the Customs Union, it was by agreeing that May avoided a border in the Irish Sea.


I am a Unionist because I want to preserve a Union which relies on consent, you are clearly moving towards enforcing a Union reliant on a hard border in Ireland and riot police, the army and the gun