Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There’s no automaticity that the next Tory leader becomes Prim
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There’s no automaticity that the next Tory leader becomes Prime Minister
No 10 says May will only resign when she is confident her successor can command confidence of Commons, @rowenamason reports – https://t.co/Bd7nOwMfoG
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Theresa May appears, from today's announcement, to have taken the Gordon Brown approach of remaining in situ until a clear replacement is identified. So a new Prime Minister will only kiss hands when a person who seems capable of commanding the confidence of the House has been found.
So the metaphor is likely apposite.
It's not automatic...
1. Parliament breaks for Summer receess sometime around 20th July.
2. New Con leader elected around 22nd July (after recess has started)
3. Con leader become PM around 22nd.
4. Parliament returns 5th September and at that sitting the PM will move to dissolve the House and have a general election (so no need for VONC)
5. General election 17th October
Still think that's broadly how things will work out but its possible Theresa May might stay on as PM until the result of the general election is known - however I think when the new Con leader takes over the pressure on her to leave Downing St will be so great that she'll do the hand over quite quickly.
All roads lead to an Autumn election though. Sorry Brenda.
That's not unreasonable.
NCN, with an ODI average of 12.8, now in the mid sixties.
Which is the correct procedure
Her idea of ‘duty’ is a somewhat eccentric one, but that is what it is. And seeing it as a matter of principle (cf Richard T. in the last thread), she’s likely to be hard to sway.
Theresa May appears to be positing a series of hypothetical confidence votes in a series of leaders before she will go to the Palace. These votes could only be held in her own head.
If Theresa May stays on as PM until after an autumn election they could be the Con leader who became LOTO and never got the chance to become PM.
Or even worse if Theresa May resigns as PM in July but they lose the October election they could beat George Canning's record as shortest serving PM.
No one wants that record so maybe it will be in the interests of the new Con leader to ask TM to stay on as PM until after a general election?
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1136614891542982657
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/12/30/matters-of-confidence-what-to-expect-if-the-government-loses-a-vote-of-no-confidence/
It is inconceivable that any new Tory leader cannot form a government. They could simply make all their supporters ministers.
Now maybe in a week or so Jeremy Corbyn calls a confidence vote and the new government will fall, but that is not the same as saying it could not have been formed in the first place.
The Queen can't appoint at PM someone who does not command the confidence of the House.
As for any Con rebels - to go against a new leader in the first month after being installed on a vote of the members ? Nah - I’m not having it.
If Rory Stewart were to become PM, then it's possible the Conservative Party could lose MPs to the Brexit Party.
I'd also note that a Brecon & Radnor by-election would likely result in the Conservative + DUP notional majority dropping to 1.
** Also worth noting that the DUP, while not keen on the backstop, also doesn't like No Deal Brexit.
Is it....*fans myself frantically*...an Americanism?
BoZo crash out no deal instant hard border doesn't sound much like a winner
So if the remainer MPs can no-confidence out a leaver leader, what is to stop the alternative?
Why shouldn't the Brexit-supporting Tory MPs say that they also will no-confidence any leader who does not have WTO on the table?
Two sides can play at that game.
The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:
We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council.
Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1111624927445159940
Wibble.
Jeremy Corbyn could, and perhaps should just for fun, call a confidence vote in the current government, which Theresa May could conceivably lose. What he can't do is call a confidence vote on the Boris/Gove/Hunt-led government until there is one.
If she said, "Yes, that Boris does," then he would become PM until the House reconvened.
But what if it is obvious Boris did not have the confidence of the House? I don't think Mrs May could - with honesty - tell the Monarch that he did. So, the loss of B&R wouldn't be enough. But if the DUP or a meaningful number of Tory MPs jumped ship (I think it would need to be 3-5), then I don't think it would be possible to fudge the issue.
The main takeaway though is that the next PM should really, really (except for a select few) be played as a laying game right now.
Who knows if it'll be Yvette Cooper, Oliver Letwin, David Lidington, Ken Clarke, Farage or Corbyn after an election. "Someone else" is something to have generally backed in this market.
Hence she’s off.
If a closet Remainer were to get the job, then the government would likely lose at least a few of the Spartans to the Brexit Party.
If a No Dealer were to get the job then Justine Greening, Dominic Grieve and the DUP would likely go.
The path down the middle is Gove shaped. (Or possibly Boris Johnson shaped.)
I think that May has delusions that she has a role above politics (surely better than in politics at which she proved totally inept). She doesn't. She is currently PM because she is leader of the Conservative party. As soon as she is not she packs her bags and leaves. Whether the next leader can make a fist of it or not is not her concern.
Interested in a bet on that ?
The ultimate limit of human endurance has been worked out by scientists analysing the 2017 GE, the Brexit debate and other political events.
They showed the cap was 2.5 times the body's resting bullshit rate, or 20 political speeches a day for an average person.
Anything higher than that was not sustainable in the long term.
The research, by Duke University, also showed political journalists were endurance specialists, living at nearly the limit of what the human mind can cope with.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48527798
Ahhhh... the difficulties of no majority.
The House is deadlocked and that's been obvious since that exit poll came out on 8th June 2017,
May resigns as leader but stays as PM. Fine so far. For the sake of argument, Bojo gets elected Con leader, also fine. Now, at what point does May "know" Bojo will command the commons? Would she have an indicative vote? Or would it depend on her understanding the feelings of her colleagues in the house (lol)
Also, at what point does the commons basically usurp the crown's appointment of the PM? I understand the crown doesn't want to be in the position of potentially making a political decision that ultimately fails, opening itself up for criticism it is partisan and / or fallible, but how can the commons say that a PM is unacceptable before they are PM?
Surely if the next leader of the Cons cannot be PM or form a government, the crown SHOULD call on someone who could, and if that person doesn't exist, disband parliament and call an election? Is that not the crowns job in these circumstances? And how does that butt up against the FTPA?
https://order-order.com/2019/06/06/punters-demand-stewards-inquiry-mays-resignation-date-bets/
Guido gets it wrong, I think, or rather events have moved on. It may well be, as he suggests, that Betfair mixed up the Leader and Prime Minister. But the 1922 yesterday multiplied the confusion by saying that when Theresa May resigns as leader, she will immediately become acting leader, thus moving us into angels on the head of a pin territory.
Very happy for you to rib me mercilessly if I have got it wrong and I might even promise a forfeit such as writing "I was wrong, Boris is PM and it is even better than Brexit, and Brexit is the best thing that has ever happened" on this site 20 times over a period of 20 days. Alternatively you could offer to write "Brexit is a pile of shit and is damaging the economy" though that wouldn't require you to lie, and by that point you might even agree with the statement.
It's possible that AN Other, a moderate xxx MP, puts together a temporary Government of National Unity to negotiate a two year extension (sorry HYUFD) ahead of proper elections.
The terms are simply "when does Theresa May cease to be Leader". That will be July.
Is transitioning from "Permanent Leader" to "Acting Leader" ceasing to be leader? No. The clue is in the word leader being in both titles. The market was not when someone ceases to be permanent leader but when they cease to be leader . . . and if they're acting leader then they are still leader.
They could string out the membership ballot until early August and that would definitely be after the start of recess)
And as has been pointed out, an election is not guaranteed to resolve the current impasse.
Wishful thinking, profit-taking or reports from the ground?
I actually think a new leader could get through an immediate confidence vote as long as they don't explicitly commit to No Deal at this stage. Even "let's see what turns up and leave on Oct 31 if not" would probably keep a sufficient number of the current can-kicking Commoners on-side.
EDIT TO ADD: To be clear, I think that could very quickly change after the summer when the new HMG pivots to "sorry.. nothing turned up, so we're pulling up the drawbridge".
If TBP win the seat from nowhere Labour are going to start wondering whether the daily demands for another GE are a plan worthy of Baldrick (who isn't even a party member anymore). The temptation to find a way to move on from Brexit (despite it destroying the Tories more comprehensively than Blair ever managed) will be strong. If some sort of consensus suddenly appeared then the next Tory leader will be PM, at least for long enough to get this through.
Boris turns up at the Palace.
"Do you have the support of the House?"
"Ahhh... Ummm... Probably"
"I'm sorry, do you have commitments from 323-odd MPs?"
"Ummm... not yet..."
"I need to give someone else a chance to get to the magic number."
(Some time later)
"Jeremy, whatssup?"
"No Ma'am, I don't have the Confidence of the House."
"Does anyone else?"
"My traitorous deputy claims to..."
Or someone might win a majority and the country gets a clear direction for the first time in three years.
Those are always the risks with an election.
Britain is a modern, multi-cultural society, built on the foundations of inclusion, diversity and respect for others. Schools play a key part in this, and we believe that learning to live together is at the heart of education.
Officials from the Department for Education are working closely with schools in Birmingham and with partners across the country where parents have raised concerns. The Minister for Women and Equalities has been clear that she supports the statutory guidance on relationships education in primary schools and relationships and sex education in secondary schools, which expects that LGBT specific content, when taught, is fully integrated in schools’ programme of study for this area of the curriculum.
The Minister believes that teaching children about the diverse society that we live in and the different types of loving, healthy relationships that exist can be done in a way that respects everyone’s views. We want to build a country where LGBT people feel welcomed and safe at school, college, university and beyond, so that they can reach their full potential.
I hope this information is helpful
Yours sincerely,
Government Equalities Office
Who else is sufficiently respected across the House ?
I think there was an election in the 50s where one party got more votes but fewer seats.