politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on a Peterborough by election in 2019

shiney2 said:

ydoethur said:

shiney2 said:

kle4 said:

shiney2 said:

kle4 said:

shiney2 said:

If Theresa's Tories are hoping for a Onasanya bounce they may be disappointed.

Here's the top comment (of 6,150 correspondents) replying to Mrs May's latest sally to her likely Electorate in the ToryGraph.

"Disgusting traitor. Just resign and live in infamy as the worst PM Britain has ever had.
You have failed in every single way possible and dragged our country down to the level of a banana republic with your lies, deceit and corruption." = 966 up votes.

All the others with 500+ upvotes are similar.

Can't see it improving after she puts in the SI 'postponing' Brexit to 20XX..

Well that's hardly her preferred option, she is not in control of events as we know.

She has to do it personally as PM. Nobody can force her.

There is no excuse. Its her choice.

And that fact is going to damn her.

So what? Parliament won't approve anything, and part of that is down to her poor leadership, but she has to respond to the inability of parliament to agree something, or implement what parliament agrees, and they agreed to extend. It's one of the few things they have agreed on. She backed herself into a corner as much as she got backed into it, but the 'she's a traitor' crowd are just plain foolish.

Many many people (her supporters natch) believed Theresa 'No Deal Is better than a bad deal, May.

She said it 80+ times to the Public.. And they believed.

And that counts

But she hasn't got a bad deal.

6000+ respondents to her letter in the ToryGraph asserting that, disagree.

Which proves what, exactly? It's like saying ten thousand Mirror readers (or 'readers') support Ken Livingstone's overt racism.

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

NickPalmer said:

I feel as you do about Steel - genuinely shocked. Some of the reports are not quite accurate, in that Smith didn't confess to him, merely confirmed he'd been investigated. So although Steel got the impression (he doesn't say how) he was guilty, it's perhaps understandable that he didn't feel he could tell the police about his opinion. But how he could have had him continue to sit alongside and later get a knighthood is completely incomprehensible.

It is of course true that such evidence would be inadmissible in a police investigation as it would be considered hearsay.

But at the same time it should have ruled him out of a knighthood and seen him dropped as a Liberal candidate.

Again, we come back to the fact that far too many people either didn't see it as a big deal, or paradoxically, saw closing down a scandal as more important.

Steel seems to have been another such.

1979 was ,of course, also the year of the Thorpe trial , and one can well imagine Steel as Liberal Leader not wishing to see another can of worms opened at that time. It does not though excuse his subsequent actions .

His activities (mostly as a Labour councillor, before he moved to Liberals) were published in Private Eye, and investigated by the police in the early Seventies, with the file passed to MI5 and seen by the DPP. David Steel was not the only one, and the Liberals not the only party turning a blind eye.

Foxy said:

viewcode said:

rottenborough said:

viewcode said:

@justin124

I note your remarks upthread. All I can tell you that morals change with time and place. The abusive behaviour of, say, Jimmy Savile was rumoured at the time, but celebs seem to have virtual carte-blanche for some time: John [redacted], David [redacted] and Jimmy [redacted] are known to have had relationships with underage girls (the latter two with the same girl, Lori Mattix), and Bill Wyman started dating his future wife when she was 13 and he 47. Even today it continues, with the late Paul [redacted] dating teenage girls whilst he was in his 30's.

I think the different morals today are an offshoot of the internet. if it is one person's word against another then there is little chance of conviction. But nowadays victims can contact each other and gain sufficient strength, cf Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein. I'm not an unambiguous fan of today's trial by twitter (comedian Bill Burr has a line about the death of due process) and it can go horribly wrong (as Paul Gambaccini and William Roach can testify). But it has enabled people to publicise the fact that horrible behaviour is widespread and even normalised, and enabled several victims such as Ashley Judd to seek redress.

I vaguely remember the Bill Wyman stuff from when I was a teenager. My memory is hazy after all these years, but I seem to recall it was treated as a bit of a joke. Which fits your time and place argument. Seems incredible now.

Doesn't it just. If I happened now he'd be jailed, and rightly so.

Underage groupies were all part of the rock star entourage back in the day, all part of the rebel lifestyle. It all seems pretty sleazy in retrospect. Similarly pederasty was not considered that big of deal. We have rightly become much more puritanical over the years. I am sure that I am not the only PBer hit on by older men when I was under the age of 21, the age of consent of the time.

Correct. Sexual morals were very different, almost unrecognisably so. Abuse of children was often disregarded but attitudes to gays, as they weren't called then, were very much less liberal than they are today and the older generation still referred to cohabiting unmarried people as "living in sin". Even in the 1980s, when I was well into my 20s, my girlfriend and I were not allowed to sleep together in my parents house.

Pop quiz hot shots.

Who said this in 2012?

Britain should leave the EU but “remain in the customs union” and participate in a “common market to deliver economic benefits for the whole continent”.

The softest of soft Brexits then, of the type Nick Boles MP is now facing deselection by angry Tory activists for recommending.

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1491/hp-sauce

another_richard said:

shiney2 said:

ydoethur said:

shiney2 said:

ydoethur said:

shiney2 said:

kle4 said:

shiney2 said:

kle4 said:

shiney2 said:

If Theresa's Tories are hoping for a Onasanya bounce they may be disappointed.

Here's the top comment (of 6,150 correspondents) replying to Mrs May's latest sally to her likely Electorate in the ToryGraph.

"Disgusting traitor. Just resign and live in infamy as the worst PM Britain has ever had.
You have failed in every single way possible and dragged our country down to the level of a banana republic with your lies, deceit and corruption." = 966 up votes.

All the others with 500+ upvotes are similar.

Can't see it improving after she puts in the SI 'postponing' Brexit to 20XX..

Well that's hardly her preferred option, she is not in control of events as we know.

She has to do it personally as PM. Nobody can force her.

There is no excuse. Its her choice.

And that fact is going to damn her.

So what? Parliament won't approve anything, and part of that is down to her poor leadership, but she has to respond to the inability of parliament to agree something, or implement what parliament agrees, and they agreed to extend. It's one of the few things they have agreed on. She backed herself into a corner as much as she got backed into it, but the 'she's a traitor' crowd are just plain foolish.

Many many people (her supporters natch) believed Theresa 'No Deal Is better than a bad deal, May.

She said it 80+ times to the Public.. And they believed.

And that counts

But she hasn't got a bad deal.

6000+ respondents to her letter in the ToryGraph asserting that, disagree.

Which proves what, exactly? It's like saying ten thousand Mirror readers (or 'readers') support Ken Livingstone's overt racism.

May's up for election sometime soon. Ken electorally dead&gone. A large chunk of her party's natural voter pool hate her party's only policy enough to say so and blame her. Lots of tory voters will likely be sitting on their hands next vote time. Perhaps you can't see that likelihood..

Perhaps they should have opposed May back in 2016 or in 2017 instead they allowed May to do all the negotiating and complete her deal and then they had the tantrum when it was too late.

Some did. Check out my Sept2016 vintage avatar.

shiney2 said:

another_richard said:

shiney2 said:

ydoethur said:

shiney2 said:

ydoethur said:

shiney2 said:

kle4 said:

shiney2 said:

kle4 said:

shiney2 said:

If Theresa's Tories are hoping for a Onasanya bounce they may be disappointed.

Here's the top comment (of 6,150 correspondents) replying to Mrs May's latest sally to her likely Electorate in the ToryGraph.

"Disgusting traitor. Just resign and live in infamy as the worst PM Britain has ever had.
You have failed in every single way possible and dragged our country down to the level of a banana republic with your lies, deceit and corruption." = 966 up votes.

All the others with 500+ upvotes are similar.

Can't see it improving after she puts in the SI 'postponing' Brexit to 20XX..

Well that's hardly her preferred option, she is not in control of events as we know.

She has to do it personally as PM. Nobody can force her.

There is no excuse. Its her choice.

And that fact is going to damn her.

So what? Parliament won't approve anything, and part of that is down to her poor leadership, but she has to respond to the inability of parliament to agree something, or implement what parliament agrees, and they agreed to extend. It's one of the few things they have agreed on. She backed herself into a corner as much as she got backed into it, but the 'she's a traitor' crowd are just plain foolish.

Many many people (her supporters natch) believed Theresa 'No Deal Is better than a bad deal, May.

She said it 80+ times to the Public.. And they believed.

And that counts

But she hasn't got a bad deal.

6000+ respondents to her letter in the ToryGraph asserting that, disagree.

Which proves what, exactly? It's like saying ten thousand Mirror readers (or 'readers') support Ken Livingstone's overt racism.

May's up for election sometime soon. Ken electorally dead&gone. A large chunk of her party's natural voter pool hate her party's only policy enough to say so and blame her. Lots of tory voters will likely be sitting on their hands next vote time. Perhaps you can't see that likelihood..

Perhaps they should have opposed May back in 2016 or in 2017 instead they allowed May to do all the negotiating and complete her deal and then they had the tantrum when it was too late.

Some did. Check out my Sept2016 vintage avatar.

But the ERG didn't.

If they wanted a hard-core properly prepared No Deal Brexit then they should have opposed May when there was time.

But none of them wanted to take any responsibility or do any work.

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

NickPalmer said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/LaylaMoran/status/1107304992317337603

Reading that, I think we have passed the point where saying that a second referendum would be undemocratic sounded a bit counter-intuitive. It now makes you sound completely unhinged.

Intriguing that Boris and Keir Starmer are having such a good war. If the Tories were led by Boris and Labour by Keir, how would people here vote? HYUFD for Boris, maybe Philip, Sean F?

I would vote for Boris but I increasingly like the look of Matt Hancock

In all the fun and games, this recent gaffe by Hancock is lost in the twittersphere:

https://twitter.com/Phoebejoy1611/status/1106310007895851009?s=19

... Hancock was criticising it though?

another_richard said:

MaxPB said:

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1107331969891909632

Moreover it won’t be 75. It will be a smaller number next time. Dominic Raab and Boris Johnson have painted themselves into a corner.

David Davis jumped out earlier. He, and perhaps Esther McVey, now look better placed.

Even a lot of the grassroots are concluding that the WA is better than no Brexit.

Yes, even though I'm in a London constituency I can see the mood among my WhatsApp group has changed from against the WA to in favour in the last week or so. A few were won over by the bad faith concessions from the EU and loads were won over by Parliament voting down no deal, they feel the default option has become no brexit.

Additionally, it seems to finally have dawned on these idiots that the WA is temporary and if the EU tries to make it permanent against our will we now have recourse to exit.

I really think that the PM has been awful with the messaging, too many people (MPs included) believe that the WA is the end state.

Why were your WhatsApp group people against the WA to begin with ?

Because they believed no deal to be a realistic option and because the brexit MPs reacted so badly to the WA and muddled it with the end state relationship. There's also a large element of "fuck you I won't do what you want" wrt to their feelings towards remainers, every time the same lecture about leavers all being racist or something like that comes along it really fires everyone into a no deal mood. The hectoring from the remain side is about as helpful as a chocolate teapot

Boris implying he'll vote for the deal if Theresa clears off?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/17/back-pms-deal-need-proof-next-stage-brexit-talks-will-radically/

MaxPB said:

another_richard said:

MaxPB said:

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1107331969891909632

Moreover it won’t be 75. It will be a smaller number next time. Dominic Raab and Boris Johnson have painted themselves into a corner.

David Davis jumped out earlier. He, and perhaps Esther McVey, now look better placed.

Even a lot of the grassroots are concluding that the WA is better than no Brexit.

Yes, even though I'm in a London constituency I can see the mood among my WhatsApp group has changed from against the WA to in favour in the last week or so. A few were won over by the bad faith concessions from the EU and loads were won over by Parliament voting down no deal, they feel the default option has become no brexit.

Additionally, it seems to finally have dawned on these idiots that the WA is temporary and if the EU tries to make it permanent against our will we now have recourse to exit.

I really think that the PM has been awful with the messaging, too many people (MPs included) believe that the WA is the end state.

Why were your WhatsApp group people against the WA to begin with ?

Because they believed no deal to be a realistic option and because the brexit MPs reacted so badly to the WA and muddled it with the end state relationship. There's also a large element of "fuck you I won't do what you want" wrt to their feelings towards remainers, every time the same lecture about leavers all being racist or something like that comes along it really fires everyone into a no deal mood. The hectoring from the remain side is about as helpful as a chocolate teapot

Even if No Deal was a realistic and properly planned option it doesn't necessarily make it the best option.

But government advocacy of May's deal has been appallingly lacking.

MaxPB said:

GIN1138 said:

Boris implying he'll vote for the deal of Thersa clears off?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/17/back-pms-deal-need-proof-next-stage-brexit-talks-will-radically/

Boris is a bastard... But at least he's an honest bastard.

ydoethur said:

shiney2 said:

ydoethur said:

shiney2 said:

ydoethur said:

shiney2 said:

kle4 said:

shiney2 said:

kle4 said:

shiney2 said:

If Theresa's Tories are hoping for a Onasanya bounce they may be disappointed.

Here's the top comment (of 6,150 correspondents) replying to Mrs May's latest sally to her likely Electorate in the ToryGraph.

"Disgusting traitor. Just resign and live in infamy as the worst PM Britain has ever had.
You have failed in every single way possible and dragged our country down to the level of a banana republic with your lies, deceit and corruption." = 966 up votes.

All the others with 500+ upvotes are similar.

Can't see it improving after she puts in the SI 'postponing' Brexit to 20XX..

Well that's hardly her preferred option, she is not in control of events as we know.

She has to do it personally as PM. Nobody can force her.

There is no excuse. Its her choice.

And that fact is going to damn her.

So what? Parliament won't approve anything, and part of that is down to her poor leadership, but she has to respond to the inability of parliament to agree something, or implement what parliament agrees, and they agreed to extend. It's one of the few things they have agreed on. She backed herself into a corner as much as she got backed into it, but the 'she's a traitor' crowd are just plain foolish.

Many many people (her supporters natch) believed Theresa 'No Deal Is better than a bad deal, May.

She said it 80+ times to the Public.. And they believed.

And that counts

But she hasn't got a bad deal.

6000+ respondents to her letter in the ToryGraph asserting that, disagree.

Which proves what, exactly? It's like saying ten thousand Mirror readers (or 'readers') support Ken Livingstone's overt racism.

May's up for election sometime soon. Ken electorally dead&gone. A large chunk of her party's natural voter pool hate her party's only policy enough to say so and blame her. Lots of tory voters will likely be sitting on their hands next vote time. Perhaps you can't see that likelihood..

6000 Telegraph readers are not her 'core constituency.'

There is every reason to expect a very depressed Tory vote next time. Your irrational dislike of the WA isn't one of them.

'natural voter pool' neq 'core constituency'. You seem to having rationality issue, perhaps connected with the WA, yourself dear.

shiney2 said:

another_richard said:

shiney2 said:

another_richard said:

shiney2 said:

ydoethur said:

shiney2 said:

ydoethur said:

shiney2 said:

Many many people (her supporters natch) believed Theresa 'No Deal Is better than a bad deal, May.

She said it 80+ times to the Public.. And they believed.

And that counts

But she hasn't got a bad deal.

6000+ respondents to her letter in the ToryGraph asserting that, disagree.

Which proves what, exactly? It's like saying ten thousand Mirror readers (or 'readers') support Ken Livingstone's overt racism.

May's up for election sometime soon. Ken electorally dead&gone. A large chunk of her party's natural voter pool hate her party's only policy enough to say so and blame her. Lots of tory voters will likely be sitting on their hands next vote time. Perhaps you can't see that likelihood..

Perhaps they should have opposed May back in 2016 or in 2017 instead they allowed May to do all the negotiating and complete her deal and then they had the tantrum when it was too late.

Some did. Check out my Sept2016 vintage avatar.

But the ERG didn't.

If they wanted a hard-core properly prepared No Deal Brexit then they should have opposed May when there was time.

But none of them wanted to take any responsibility or do any work.

Personally I think that's unfair. Decisively, the erg were and are a minority within a parliamentary party where decisions are majority based. They were also systematically undermined by a liar who happened to be their boss.

For myself when Corbo calls his next NC vote, I'd quote current tory accepted practice to the whips and go down the pub. Not sure SI's can be implemented while the FTPA is in control..

But by being a minority that means the ERG's demands shouldn't be imposed on the majority of the Conservative party merely by the ERG having a tantrum when all the work had been done by someone else.

If the ERG really wanted to have hard-line No Deal Brexit they had the opportunities and the responsibility to stand up, challenge May and argue their case.

But they didn't.

MaxPB said:

another_richard said:

MaxPB said:

another_richard said:

MaxPB said:

Sean_F said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1107331969891909632

Moreover it won’t be 75. It will be a smaller number next time. Dominic Raab and Boris Johnson have painted themselves into a corner.

David Davis jumped out earlier. He, and perhaps Esther McVey, now look better placed.

Even a lot of the grassroots are concluding that the WA is better than no Brexit.

Yes, even though I'm in a London constituency I can see the mood among my WhatsApp group has changed from against the WA to in favour in the last week or so. A few were won over by the bad faith concessions from the EU and loads were won over by Parliament voting down no deal, they feel the default option has become no brexit.

Additionally, it seems to finally have dawned on these idiots that the WA is temporary and if the EU tries to make it permanent against our will we now have recourse to exit.

I really think that the PM has been awful with the messaging, too many people (MPs included) believe that the WA is the end state.

Why were your WhatsApp group people against the WA to begin with ?

Because they believed no deal to be a realistic option and because the brexit MPs reacted so badly to the WA and muddled it with the end state relationship. There's also a large element of "fuck you I won't do what you want" wrt to their feelings towards remainers, every time the same lecture about leavers all being racist or something like that comes along it really fires everyone into a no deal mood. The hectoring from the remain side is about as helpful as a chocolate teapot

Even if No Deal was a realistic and properly planned option it doesn't necessarily make it the best option.

But government advocacy of May's deal has been appallingly lacking.

I think in the last week there has been more explaining to the public (and MPs) that the WA is just covers the transition period and any additional time needed to get the end state trade deal agreed. Far, far too many people believed (and still believe) that the WA is the end state. Now armed with an arbitration panel if the EU play silly buggers on the end state deal, I expect we will take the 2 year transition, 3-4 years in the UK wide backstop and move into a fairly broad trade deal with the EU covering goods, movement of goods and services equivalency.

That's how I see it as well.

And that's IMO a long sight more preferable than unprepared No Deal Brexit at the end of an economic cycle and dependent upon Fox and Grayling getting their acts together.

Theuniondivvie said:

Gamm'n'roll.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1106986526267920385

Silly, old twa...err... gentleman.

So he didn't die before he got old...

https://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/1107394744286625793

Will this work?

The further Boris Johnson gets from the leadership, the more desperate he becomes. This is shameless and naked.
Subtext: vote for her deal and I'll take over from there. YUCK!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/17/back-pms-deal-need-proof-next-stage-brexit-talks-will-radically/

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1107380138021453836

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/1107394744286625793

Will this work?

It was suggested it might...three months ago (ok, not necessarily as beign definitive, but the prospect of people voting for the deal so long as she stepped down was definitely raised as a potential factor back in mid december).

It's so tough though - I think the numbers were put up as 69 ERGers voted against time, plus the DUP, plus the Grievers. The latter are as impossible to please as the hardcore ERGers. More impossible in fact, since no deal of any magnificence could persuade them. So let's say the DUP are possible. That's 10 of 75 achieved (assuming nobody switches the other way). No way she can get all the 69 ERGers, call it 55 at best?

Best case scenario 10 more Lab MPs needed at least. Probably more like 20. And May promising to go has no affect on their willingness to vote for the deal, nor does promising the DUP extra cash (to be be announced in a few months presumably).

So it seems like it could work to make it close at least.

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1107380138021453836

I thought this is where we’d get to and to be honest May would be stupid not to go for it. She’s going to be out of a job either way. Yes I know technically she can hang on til Christmas without a vote of confidence but if there’s a long extension and the next chapter opens she’s going to get the full Thatcher treatment before April is out.

Announce she’ll go in summer. New leader in time for conference. She gets to make 3 years (roughly) in the job and will have delivered a withdrawal agreement. Legacy (for good or bad) secured.

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/1107394744286625793

Will this work?

It was suggested it might...three months ago (ok, not necessarily as beign definitive, but the prospect of people voting for the deal so long as she stepped down was definitely raised as a potential factor back in mid december).

It's so tough though - I think the numbers were put up as 69 ERGers voted against time, plus the DUP, plus the Grievers. The latter are as impossible to please as the hardcore ERGers. More impossible in fact, since no deal of any magnificence could persuade them. So let's say the DUP are possible. That's 10 of 75 achieved (assuming nobody switches the other way). No way she can get all the 69 ERGers, call it 55 at best?

Best case scenario 10 more Lab MPs needed at least. Probably more like 20. And May promising to go has no affect on their willingness to vote for the deal, nor does promising the DUP extra cash (to be be announced in a few months presumably).

So it seems like it could work to make it close at least.

Close gives her MV4 the following week. As this government is living only one week at a time, she may well take it.

Amusing/frightening to think that a week on Friday we might have left the EU with No Deal.

Also means I leave the party as an activist, but will remain a member to elect Theresa's successor.

Retweeted by Trump... 🤦‍♂️

https://twitter.com/williamcraddick/status/1107351043329814528?s=21

another_richard said:

How were they lied to ?

To me May's Deal is pretty much what you could have expected May to negotiate.

How could anyone have expected May to negotiate a hard-line No Deal Brexit when she has never supported a hard-line No Deal Brexit and when her government was obviously making no preparations for a hard-line No Deal Brexit ?

If Conservatives wanted a hard-line No Deal Brexit they should have been doing everything they could to get Fox and Grayling removed from jobs which would be vital for a hard-line No Deal Brexit.

Instead I don't remember any criticism of Fox and Grayling from the ERG.

As I pointed out as the lone voice of reason opposing a brain-dead motion at our constituency AGM on Friday, May's deal means that:

- We're out of the CFP
- We're out of the CAP
- We're out of the political structures of the EU
- We're out of ever-closer union
- We're out of the ECJ having jurisdiction over UK domestic law
- We're out of the Freedom of Movement rules
- We're out of the Single Market
- We're out of the Customs Union

And yet the loons are claiming that this isn't 'real Brexit'.

As for the backstop, if it ever happens, it's temporary, for the very good reason that the EU absolutely hate it. It was actually a great achievement of Olly Robbins and Theresa May to get them to agree to it; in essence it's what in the old days we called the 'Common Market' - a free trade agreement in goods, but still leaving us out of the first six of the above list, and with the added bonus that we don't pay a centime towards the EU budget, and we have full access to the EU markets in fish and agricultural products. The idea that we could be 'trapped' in this arrangement which drives a coach and horses through two of the EU's reddest of red lines is laughable.

No-one significant was arguing for a 'harder' Brexit - quite the opposite, they were promising us a smooth transition and no change to trade arrangements the day after Brexit. Now they are claiming that Brexit has to mean an end to free trade with the EU (and with dozens of other countries), including tariffs and the full gamut of non-tariff trade barriers imposed overnight.

This collective insanity seems to have taken over much of the Conservative Party. The only ray of hope is that (paradoxically) the fact that one set of rebels helped rule out a no-deal disaster seems to be helping the government get the more intractable and ideologically-obsessed set of rebels back in line. Who knows whether it will be enough though - both No Deal and No Brexit will be very damaging for the country, and of course utterly disastrous for the Conservative Party. The latter is in itself of little importance, but when the alternative is Corbyn, it becomes of very great importance.

rottenborough said:

kle4 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/1107394744286625793

Will this work?

It was suggested it might...three months ago (ok, not necessarily as beign definitive, but the prospect of people voting for the deal so long as she stepped down was definitely raised as a potential factor back in mid december).

It's so tough though - I think the numbers were put up as 69 ERGers voted against time, plus the DUP, plus the Grievers. The latter are as impossible to please as the hardcore ERGers. More impossible in fact, since no deal of any magnificence could persuade them. So let's say the DUP are possible. That's 10 of 75 achieved (assuming nobody switches the other way). No way she can get all the 69 ERGers, call it 55 at best?

Best case scenario 10 more Lab MPs needed at least. Probably more like 20. And May promising to go has no affect on their willingness to vote for the deal, nor does promising the DUP extra cash (to be be announced in a few months presumably).

So it seems like it could work to make it close at least.

Close gives her MV4 the following week. As this government is living only one week at a time, she may well take it.

Not sure she can wait a week this time - the extension vote last week talked of the 20th being key!

A MV4 a day after MV3 would be just the right kind of absurdity. Even assuming Bercow allowed it, surely they'd have to at least trying something between MVs, not just bring it straight back?

Richard_Nabavi said:

another_richard said:

How were they lied to ?

To me May's Deal is pretty much what you could have expected May to negotiate.

snip

Instead I don't remember any criticism of Fox and Grayling from the ERG.

As I pointed out as the lone voice of reason opposing a brain-dead motion at our constituency AGM on Friday, May's deal means that:

- We're out of the CFP
- We're out of the CAP
- We're out of the political structures of the EU
- We're out of ever-closer union
- We're out of the ECJ having jurisdiction over UK domestic law
- We're out of the Freedom of Movement rules
- We're out of the Single Market
- We're out of the Customs Union

And yet the loons are claiming that this isn't 'real Brexit'.

As for the backstop, if it ever happens, it's temporary, for the very good reason that the EU absolutely hate it. It was actually a great achievement of Olly Robbins and Theresa May to get them to agree to it; in essence it's what in the old days we called the 'Common Market' - a free trade agreement in goods, but still leaving us out of the first six of the above list, and with the added bonus that we don't pay a centime towards the EU budget, and we have full access to the EU markets in fish and agricultural products. The idea that we could be 'trapped' in this arrangement which drives a coach and horses through two of the EU's reddest of red lines has is laughable.

No-one significant was arguing for a 'harder' Brexit - quite the opposite, they were promising us a smooth transition and no change to trade arrangements the say after Brexit. Now they are claiming that Brexit has to mean an end to free trade with the EU (and with dozens of other countries), including tariffs and the full gamut of non-tariff trade barriers imposed overnight.

This collective insanity seems to have taken over much of the Conservative Party. The only ray of hope is that (paradoxically) the fact that one set of rebels helped rule out a no-deal disaster seems to be helping the government get the more intractable and ideologically-obsessed set of rebels back in line. Who knows whether it will be enough though - both No Deal and No Brexit will be very damaging for the country, and of course utterly disastrous for the Conservative Party. The latter is in itself of little importance, but when the alternative is Corbyn, it becomes of very great importance.

Wise words. And extremely worrying you were the lone voice at AGM.

The nonsense of Boris and co seems to have infected vast swathes of tory membership.

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Amusing/frightening to think that a week on Friday we might have left the EU with No Deal.

Also means I leave the party as an activist, but will remain a member to elect Theresa's successor.

Will you consider leaving as a member depending on who gets the job? I know Ydoethur will be apoplectic if it is Gove for instance.

I'd wait until the next leadership election.

If it was a No Dealer/ERGer succeeding a No Dealer/ERGer then the party isn't for me.

Well, their loss if TIGs gain perhaps.

https://twitter.com/TimesPictures/status/1107408212280688640

rottenborough said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

another_richard said:

How were they lied to ?

To me May's Deal is pretty much what you could have expected May to negotiate.

snip

Instead I don't remember any criticism of Fox and Grayling from the ERG.

As I pointed out as the lone voice of reason opposing a brain-dead motion at our constituency AGM on Friday, May's deal means that:

- We're out of the CFP
- We're out of the CAP
- We're out of the political structures of the EU
- We're out of ever-closer union
- We're out of the ECJ having jurisdiction over UK domestic law
- We're out of the Freedom of Movement rules
- We're out of the Single Market
- We're out of the Customs Union

And yet the loons are claiming that this isn't 'real Brexit'.

As for the backstop, if it ever happens, it's temporary, for the very good reason that the EU absolutely hate it. It was actually a great achievement of Olly Robbins and Theresa May to get them to agree to it; in essence it's what in the old days we called the 'Common Market' - a free trade agreement in goods, but still leaving us out of the first six of the above list, and with the added bonus that we don't pay a centime towards the EU budget, and we have full access to the EU markets in fish and agricultural products. The idea that we could be 'trapped' in this arrangement which drives a coach and horses through two of the EU's reddest of red lines has is laughable.

No-one significant was arguing for a 'harder' Brexit - quite the opposite, they were promising us a smooth transition and no change to trade arrangements the say after Brexit. Now they are claiming that Brexit has to mean an end to free trade with the EU (and with dozens of other countries), including tariffs and the full gamut of non-tariff trade barriers imposed overnight.

This collectce.

The nonsense of Boris and co seems to have infected vast swathes of tory membership.

Well, parties change, and we know what the Tory members like.

More concerning I'd think is I don't even expect Boris believes all the things he says that makes him popular among the membership. Everyone plays to the crowd of course, but he's so blatant.

But maybe if he did switch to the deal, shamelessly and without any logical justification for doing so in the absence of anything new, he is just the man to convince the membership of the necessity in doing so.

anothernick said:

Foxy said:

Underage groupies were all part of the rock star entourage back in the day, all part of the rebel lifestyle. It all seems pretty sleazy in retrospect. Similarly pederasty was not considered that big of deal. We have rightly become much more puritanical over the years. I am sure that I am not the only PBer hit on by older men when I was under the age of 21, the age of consent of the time.

Correct. Sexual morals were very different, almost unrecognisably so. Abuse of children was often disregarded but attitudes to gays, as they weren't called then, were very much less liberal than they are today and the older generation still referred to cohabiting unmarried people as "living in sin". Even in the 1980s, when I was well into my 20s, my girlfriend and I were not allowed to sleep together in my parents house.

I think the sleazy rock stars were mainly an Anglo-Saxon thing. I grew up in the 60s in liberated Denmark, which even then regarded sex between people over 16 as perfectly natural. But I don't recall anyone indicating an interest in sex with kids and the whole rock cult scene never really took off there - the clean-cut Abba was more typical, though there were hard rockers too.

Andrew said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

And yet the loons are claiming that this isn't 'real Brexit'.

Anything short of mining the channel, blowing up the tunnel and banning all flights to the continent wouldn't be considered a proper Brexit. These people have obsessed over Europe for decades, so rationality long since went out the window.

Except as Richard points out, the number of people who believe in such a super hard Brexit far exceeds the number who have spent decades obsessing over the issue. It includes people who were never a part of that grouping.

It is a sign of how poor a job May and her Cabinet team (who have at times been extremely lukewarm about the deal or put in little effort in selling it compared to say, Rory Stewart) have done in convincing their members. Yes no one likes a compromise and it would never meet the expectations people had, but I think that was part of the strategy all along, and yet it turned out the deal was just so damn unpopular so fast, and that is not simply down to the Borises of the world casting some kind of spell on the members.

Andrew said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

And yet the loons are claiming that this isn't 'real Brexit'.

Anything short of mining the channel, blowing up the tunnel and banning all flights to the continent wouldn't be considered a proper Brexit. These people have obsessed over Europe for decades, so rationality long since went out the window.

Truth is, in their heart of hearts, they don't want to leave.

Because what else would they do with their lives.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Andrew said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

And yet the loons are claiming that this isn't 'real Brexit'.

Anything short of mining the channel, blowing up the tunnel and banning all flights to the continent wouldn't be considered a proper Brexit. These people have obsessed over Europe for decades, so rationality long since went out the window.

But that's the thing - what has shocked me is that party members who haven't obsessed over Europe in the past seem recently to have become infected by the madness.

I don't like the word, as it is overused, but it does seem revolutionary, in how very normal, even moderate people, can quite quickly become completely used to very extreme things (though in this case merely a more hard line political position) as if it is totally normal even if they would have shuddered at the thought mere months or years before.

NickPalmer said:

DavidL said:

NickPalmer said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/LaylaMoran/status/1107304992317337603

Reading that, I think we have passed the point where saying that a second referendum would be undemocratic sounded a bit counter-intuitive. It now makes you sound completely unhinged.

Intriguing that Boris and Keir Starmer are having such a good war. If the Tories were led by Boris and Labour by Keir, how would people here vote? HYUFD for Boris, maybe Philip, Sean F?

You think? It seems to me that Boris has had a torrid time and looks increasingly irrelevant ever since he resigned as FS. Starmer looked like a major player early on but seems to me to have got lost in the ever more bizarre contortions of Labour’s position brought about by Corbyn. He has been pretty quiet, effectively side lined of late.

I was just commenting on the poll showing that people fancies Boris or Keir to run the Brexit show.

Keir I get, he's appeared competent and effective, even if part of the popularity is that he has clearly been desperate for Remain to be the outcome for awhile even though he has to work within limits. Boris, not so much. The man couldn't even resign convincingly.

The thing I love most about the Boris blustering expecting the EU to cave, is that is predicated on the assumptions first that the EU cannot see that the UK parliament is really divided on this issue, but also that political and institutional pressure does not matter to the EU heads of government or the Commission. The possibility that having nailed its colours to the mast the EU might also be willing to stubbornly stick things out even if it hurts them because of politics does not seem to occur to him.

Richard_Nabavi said:

another_richard said:

How were they lied to ?

To me May's Deal is pretty much what you could have expected May to negotiate.

How could anyone have expected May to negotiate a hard-line No Deal Brexit when she has never supported a hard-line No Deal Brexit and when her government was obviously making no preparations for a hard-line No Deal Brexit ?

If Conservatives wanted a hard-line No Deal Brexit they should have been doing everything they could to get Fox and Grayling removed from jobs which would be vital for a hard-line No Deal Brexit.

Instead I don't remember any criticism of Fox and Grayling from the ERG.

As I pointed out as the lone voice of reason opposing a brain-dead motion at our constituency AGM on Friday, May's deal means that:

- We're out of the CFP
- We're out of the CAP
- We're out of the political structures of

And yet the loons are claiming that this isn't 'real Brexit'.

As for the backstop, if it ever happens, it's temporary, for the very good reason that the EU absolutely hate it. It was actually a great achievement of Olly Robbins and Theresa May to get them to agree to it; in essence it's what in the old days we called the 'Common Market' - a free trade agreement in goods, but still leaving us out of the first six of the above list, and with the added bonus that we don't pay a centime towards the EU budget, and we have full access to the EU markets in fish and agricultural products. The idea that we could be 'trapped' in this arrangement which drives a coach and horses through two of the EU's reddest of red lines is laughable.

No-one significant was arguing for a 'harder' Brexit - quite the opposite, they were promising us a smooth transition and no change to trade arrangements the day after Brexit. Now they are claiming that Brexit has to mean an end to free trade with the EU (and with dozens of other countries), including tariffs and the full gamut of non-tariff trade barriers imposed overnight.

This collective insanity seems to have taken over much of the Conservative Party. The only ray of hope is that (paradoxically) the fact that one set of rebels helped rule out a no-deal disaster seems to be helping the government get the more intractable and ideologically-obsessed set of rebels back in line. Who knows whether it will be enough though - both No Deal and No Brexit will be very damaging for the country, and of course utterly disastrous for the Conservative Party. The latter is in itself of little importance, but when the alternative is Corbyn, it becomes of very great importance.

I know a few people who ought to know better, who have become unhinged by it. I have to explain, very patiently, that Theresa May, Nick Boles, Michael Gove, are not traitors, and have tried to do more to deliver Brexit than the ERG have.

Gardenwalker said:

It’s a blue rinse Momentum.

And it’s why the Tories are dead as soon as Labour oust Corbyn.

I agree on the second point, but the first point isn't quite right. In Labour's case it's an influx of loons who have displaced, swamped or driven out the sensible members. In the Conservative case, although there are some new members, it's more about existing members catching the extremism bug.

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

kle4 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

another_richard said:

How were they lied to ?

To me May's Deal is pretty much what you could have expected May to negotiate.

How could anyone have expected May to negotiate a hard-line No Deal Brexit when she has never supported a hard-line No Deal Brexit and when her government was obviously making no preparations for a hard-line No Deal Brexit ?

If Conservatives wanted a hard-line No Deal Brexit they should have been doing everything they could to get Fox and Grayling removed from jobs which would be vital for a hard-line No Deal Brexit.

Instead I don't remember any criticism of Fox and Grayling from the ERG.

As I pointed out as the lone voice of reason opposing

Is it not a tad concerning you were the lone voice of reason (as you see it) in your entire constituency?

Extremely worrying. Three other voted against the motion, a forest of hands (maybe 100+) in favour.

What terrifies me most is that people I've known for some time, and who used to seem very sensible, have fallen victim to the collective hysteria, repeating word-for-word the utter nonsense about May's deal not being Brexit and the even more absurd garbage comparing her and the civil servants to Quisling. This includes people who three or four years ago were Eurosceptic in the old sense, i.e. ambivalent towards the EU and concerned about ever-closer union, but recognising some of the benefits as well.

It’s a blue rinse Momentum.

And it’s why the Tories are dead as soon as Labour oust Corbyn.

Not at all, they've got oodles of talent to unlease once May goes, there's...there's...hmm, give me a minute.

In all serious I was trying to think which Tory MP of any seniority is actually the most impressive. It's not easy to do (and not for the easy joke that none are), because in fairness it is hard for the public to know, for instance, if someone is actually any good a being a Cabinet Minister. And of course there's a temptation to decide whoever most closely fits our own views must be the most impressive.

But actually, and recognising that he has had plenty of issues which have turned many against him and he is not liked by the public, I do think the most impressive among them does seem to be Gove. That's not necessarily a massive endorsement or anything, but when I consider him against people like Hunt or Javid, and people without much experience such as Cox, he seems to have at least some political operating skills and some ministerial skills.

kle4 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Gardenwalker said:

It’s a blue rinse Momentum.

And it’s why the Tories are dead as soon as Labour oust Corbyn.

I agree on the second point, but the first point isn't quite right. In Labour's case it's an influx of loons who have displaced, swamped or driven out the sensible members. In the Conservative case, although there are some new members, it's more about existing members catching the extremism bug.

Corbyn won among longstanding members too didn't he? They'd already caught the bug.

Fair point, but I think they now know they were conned. And. to be fair, the other candidates were dire.

In response to Nick P's question, I would not vote for Boris as leader. He was summed up correctly as an "amoral, sociopathic, snake."

One friend said that "amoral" flattered him.

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Andrew said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

And yet the loons are claiming that this isn't 'real Brexit'.

Anything short of mining the channel, blowing up the tunnel and banning all flights to the continent wouldn't be considered a proper Brexit. These people have obsessed over Europe for decades, so rationality long since went out the window.

But that's the thing - what has shocked me is that party members who haven't obsessed over Europe in the past seem recently to have become infected by the madness.

And yet that is the party you (and I) are a member of. We are the ones in the minority.

At least the senior echelons of the Conservatives remain predominantly sane, but for how long?

Richard_Nabavi said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Andrew said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

And yet the loons are claiming that this isn't 'real Brexit'.

Anything short of mining the channel, blowing up the tunnel and banning all flights to the continent wouldn't be considered a proper Brexit. These people have obsessed over Europe for decades, so rationality long since went out the window.

But that's the thing - what has shocked me is that party members who haven't obsessed over Europe in the past seem recently to have become infected by the madness.

And yet that is the party you (and I) are a member of. We are the ones in the minority.

At least the senior echelons of the Conservatives remain predominantly sane, but for how long?

Here's an outside take on the madness in the Conservative party:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0XCL-IM2Lk

shiney2 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

another_richard said:

As I pointed out as the lone voice of reason opposing a brain-dead motion at our constituency AGM on Friday, May's deal means that:

- We're out of the CFP
- We're out of the CAP
- We're out of the political structures of the EU
- We're out of ever-closer union
- We're out of the ECJ having jurisdiction over UK domestic law
- We're out of the Freedom of Movement rules
- We're out of the Single Market
- We're out of the Customs Union

Is any of this actually true? Except in some transient sense.

The FR results in a superceding Treaty.

If the EU wants us back in any, or all of them (except 3 obv), they can apply commercial/industrial/political pressure cf Macron via the WA controls the ever prescient May&her remainers will have provided.

No doubt the remainer establishment will fight manfully til teatime and then concede everything.

It is all true. Richard is absolutely right on this. The first five (CFP, CAP, Political structures, ever closer union and ECJ) are specifically related to membership of the EU. All the governing bodies and decision making processes for these things are integral to EU membership so by leaving the EU we have no choice but to leave these things even if we wanted to stay in.

The sixth (FoM) is of course up to us but is only legally binding if we are part of the EEA. Which we are not allowed to be part of unless we are a member of the EU or EFTA. The same applies to the seventh (Single Market) which again requires us to be part of the EEA. The last is, in its current form, only available to members of the EU although it would be possible to have 'a' single market with the EU as opposed to being in 'the' single market. That is the only one where the structures might allow us to be pushed into something we did not want as part of negotiations.

Andrew said:

kle4 said:

But actually, and recognising that he has had plenty of issues which have turned many against him and he is not liked by the public, I do think the most impressive among them does seem to be Gove. That's not necessarily a massive endorsement or anything, but when I consider him against people like Hunt or Javid, and people without much experience such as Cox, he seems to have at least some political operating skills and some ministerial skills.

In retrospect, the fact he kamikazed into HMS Bojo last time round can now be seen as a tremendous national service, at quite a bit of personal cost.

That is exactly how many of us viewed it at the time he did it. I also believe that is exactly why he did it even if it had turned out to be a kamikaze mission. .

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pop quiz hot shots.

Who said this in 2012?

Britain should leave the EU but “remain in the customs union” and participate in a “common market to deliver economic benefits for the whole continent”.

The softest of soft Brexits then, of the type Nick Boles MP is now facing deselection by angry Tory activists for recommending.

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1491/hp-sauce

He isn't facing deselection. He deselected himself. He was asked by his constituency party to explain what his position was on Brexit to them and rather than do that he quit.

shiney2 said:

another_richard said:

shiney2 said:

another_richard said:

shiney2 said:

another_richard said:

But the ERG didn't.

If they wanted a hard-core properly prepared No Deal Brexit then they should have opposed May when there was time.

But none of them wanted to take any responsibility or do any work.

Personally I think that's unfair. Decisively, the erg were and are a minority within a parliamentary party where decisions are majority based. They were also systematically undermined by a liar who happened to be their boss.

For myself when Corbo calls his next NC vote, I'd quote current tory accepted practice to the whips and go down the pub. Not sure SI's can be implemented while the FTPA is in control..

But by being a minority that means the ERG's demands shouldn't be imposed on the majority of the Conservative party merely by the ERG having a tantrum when all the work had been done by someone else.

If the ERG really wanted to have hard-line No Deal Brexit they had the opportunities and the responsibility to stand up, challenge May and argue their case.

But they didn't.

As I say, they were systematically lied to by their boss. Tricky to prove til after the event, as we all know.

How were they lied to ?

To me May's Deal is pretty much what you could have expected May to negotiate.

How could anyone have expected May to negotiate a hard-line No Deal Brexit when she has never supported a hard-line No Deal Brexit and when her government was obviously making no preparations for a hard-line No Deal Brexit ?

If Conservatives wanted a hard-line No Deal Brexit they should have been doing everything they could to get Fox and Grayling removed from jobs which would be vital for a hard-line No Deal Brexit.

Instead I don't remember any criticism of Fox and Grayling from the ERG.

A parliament and government of remainers promised to its electorate to implement the Ref result. Both before and after the result..

May publically promised, then systematically subverted, the result by her chosen method: lying.

It seems you are unwilling to see, for instance, the content of lancaster hse speech is not replicated&decided in the WA&FR. Never mind. PM Corbyn will no doubt spend time (years?) informing us of the details of Tory governmental failure.

I believe that May's Deal does implement the Referendum result.

And what's more I willing to face reality.

Whereas the ERG it seems are willing to take hard-line No Deal Brexit with Fox and Grayling in charge of UK trade and transport.

shiney2 said:

another_richard said:

shiney2 said:

another_richard said:

shiney2 said:

another_richard said:

shiney2 said:

another_richard said:

Perhaps they should have opposed May back in 2016 or in 2017 instead they allowed May to do all the negotiating and complete her deal and then they had the tantrum when it was too late.

Some did. Check out my Sept2016 vintage avatar.

But the ERG didn't.

If they wanted a hard-core properly prepared No Deal Brexit then they should have opposed May when there was time.

But none of them wanted to take any responsibility or do any work.

Personally I think that's unfair. Decisively, the erg were and are a minority within a parliamentary party where decisions are majority based. They were also systematically undermined by a liar who happened to be their boss.

For myself when Corbo calls his next NC vote, I'd quote current tory accepted practice to the whips and go down the pub. Not sure SI's can be implemented while the FTPA is in control..

But by being a minority that means the ERG's demands shouldn't be imposed on the majority of the Conservative party merely by the ERG having a tantrum when all the work had been done by someone else.

If the ERG really wanted to have hard-line No Deal Brexit they had the

But they didn't.

As I say, they were systematically lied to by their boss. Tricky to prove til after the event, as we all know.

How were they lied to ?

To me May's Deal is pretty much what you could have expected May to negotiate.

How could anyone have expected May to negotiate a hard-line No Deal Brexit when she has never supported a hard-line No Deal Brexit and when her government was obviously making no preparations for a hard-line No Deal Brexit ?

If Conservatives wanted a hard-line No Deal Brexit they should have been doing everything they could to get Fox and Grayling removed from jobs which would be vital for a hard-line No Deal Brexit.

Instead I don't remember any criticism of Fox and Grayling from the ERG.

A parliament and government of remainers promised to its electorate to implement the Ref result. Both before and after the result..

May publically promised, then systematically subverted, the result by her chosen method: lying.

It seems you are unwilling to see, for instance, the content of lancaster hse speech is not replicated&decided in the WA&FR. Never mind. PM Corbyn will no doubt spend time (years?) informing us of the details of Tory governmental failure.

May, however ineptly, has tried to implement Brexit.

The hardliners are trying to frustrate it. Who, therefore, has lied to the voters?

It doesn't take many Tory MPs to vote against the Deal for it to be blocked, does it? Around 20 probably.

Sean_F said:

shiney2 said:

another_richard said:

shiney2 said:

another_richard said:

shiney2 said:

another_richard said:

shiney2 said:

another_richard said:

Perhaps they should have opposed May back in 2016 or in 2017 instead they allowed May to do all the negotiating and complete her deal and then they had the tantrum when it was too late.

Some did. Check out my Sept2016 vintage avatar.

snip

Personally I think that's unfair. Decisively, the erg were and are a minority within a parliamentary party where decisions are majority based. They were also systematically undermined by a liar who happened to be their boss.

For myself when Corbo calls his next NC vote, I'd quote current tory accepted practice to the whips and go down the pub. Not sure SI's can be implemented while the FTPA is in control..

snip.

As I say, they were systematically lied to by their boss. Tricky to prove til after the event, as we all know.

How were they lied to ?

To me May's Deal is pretty much what you could have expected May to negotiate.

How could anyone have expected May to negotiate a hard-line No Deal Brexit when she has never supported a hard-line No Deal Brexit and when her government was obviously making no preparations for a hard-line No Deal Brexit ?

If Conservatives wanted a hard-line No Deal Brexit they should have been doing everything they could to get Fox and Grayling removed from jobs which would be vital for a hard-line No Deal Brexit.

Instead I don't remember any criticism of Fox and Grayling from the ERG.

A parliament and government of remainers promised to its electorate to implement the Ref result. Both before and after the result..

May publically promised, then systematically subverted, the result by her chosen method: lying.

It seems you are unwilling to see, for instance, the content of lancaster hse speech is not replicated&decided in the WA&FR. Never mind. PM Corbyn will no doubt spend time (years?) informing us of the details of Tory governmental failure.

May, however ineptly, has tried to implement Brexit.

The hardliners are trying to frustrate it. Who, therefore, has lied to the voters?

If one was to appeal to the court of public opinion and assign to the two sides the relative popularity of their two policies, NODEAL and MaysDEAL, then the 'hardliners' would appear to have truth on their side.

I don't actually think May has tried to implement Brexit since she lost Nick Timothy. She was a sort of remainer before, and since, its just been one long curve to back to her default position.