Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If LAB shifts a notch on Brexit and backs a CON rebel Commons

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited February 23 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If LAB shifts a notch on Brexit and backs a CON rebel Commons move TMay could be in trouble

TMay at risk of Commons defeat as LAB shifts on Brexit – dangerous times for the PM who lost the CON majority at GE17https://t.co/R7CfTtJKO3

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,435
    first
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,435
    IF IF IF IF.. How many times have we heard that Mrs May might be in trouble. Strikes me the rebels don't have the cojones.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465
    not first
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    FPT: Good morning, everyone.

    F1: well, the McLaren reveal was pencilled in for today but it seems to have already happened. The colour scheme is very "acceptable in the 80s":
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43162270

    I rather like it.

    On-topic: sounds like a recipe for trench warfare in politics for decades.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,629
    Change isn't coming.

    If Corbyn suppers BREXIT Lab loses the next GE IMO
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465
    These rebels would have to put the future of their party at some risk, and the future of their own seats at near certain risk. For what? Being remembered as enablers of Jeremy Corbyn, Prime Minister, the guy who would be utterly reviled by history for trashing the economy, the reputation and the unity of the UK? And who would not implement the sort of Brexit they want (ie, none)?

    Yep, that really needs a great combo of cajones and stupid.
  • You have to admire Corbyn and his brazenness.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,417

    FPT: Good morning, everyone.

    F1: well, the McLaren reveal was pencilled in for today but it seems to have already happened. The colour scheme is very "acceptable in the 80s":
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43162270

    I rather like it.

    On-topic: sounds like a recipe for trench warfare in politics for decades.

    I think that’s possibly the best looking car on the grid. Those side pods would look much better covered in sponsors’ logos though.
  • I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,417
    The problem the rebels don’t seem to understand is that the default, if they keep voting things down, is that we leave the EU with no deal. All their posturing and trying to bind the hands of our negotiators just makes a crap last-minute deal all the more likely.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,629
    edited February 23

    These rebels would have to put the future of their party at some risk, and the future of their own seats at near certain risk. For what? Being remembered as enablers of Jeremy Corbyn, Prime Minister, the guy who would be utterly reviled by history for trashing the economy, the reputation and the unity of the UK? And who would not implement the sort of Brexit they want (ie, none)?

    Yep, that really needs a great combo of cajones and stupid.

    I don't see it that way the only way they succeed is if Corbyn supports this. If he does rightly he will be blamed for scuppering BREXIT. I will struggle to support Lab in those circumstances and think it would be a huge mistake.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,418
    edited February 23

    These rebels would have to put the future of their party at some risk, and the future of their own seats at near certain risk. For what? Being remembered as enablers of Jeremy Corbyn, Prime Minister, the guy who would be utterly reviled by history for trashing the economy, the reputation and the unity of the UK? And who would not implement the sort of Brexit they want (ie, none)?

    Yep, that really needs a great combo of cajones and stupid.

    Disagree. If Labour a doesn't scupper Brexit then Corbyn will never be PM.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,819

    I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.

    If she lost a vote on the customs union thing - would she have to go?
    And would a new leader have to call a GE?
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,435
    Over on Britain elects.. A classic tweet about the Minehead by election,....
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    Good morning all.

    Both parties are coalitions of voters. The arithmetic for both is awful. My view is May's polling numbers are being held up by those terrified of a Corbyn government (I'm not over-bothered by Jezza, it's Abbot, McDonnell and Milne who give me the dry heaves).

    If Labour were to row back a bit on their loopy economic policies in order to soothe the huddled masses and came out for some form of BINO, the Tories could well be in real trouble.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788

    You have to admire Corbyn and his brazenness.

    An excellent bit of news management to spur the ERG into action.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,475
    edited February 23

    Change isn't coming.

    If Corbyn suppers BREXIT Lab loses the next GE IMO

    Indeed.

    All the polling suggests an actual election fought on Brexit where Corbz is on the wrong side of the argument and Mrs May gets her majority....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,224
    The focus here is on Tory rebels, but similar issues arise for the hardline Brexiteer Labour MPs. In general, sitting MPs are not at risk. However, if they voted to save the Government over Brexit then I think that they really would be deselected - the swing vote of centre-left members who are not especially keen on left-wing politics would support any challenger saying "we need a Labour MP who doesn't help the Tories". This isn't a threat (I'm not in a position to deselect anyone), just a fact. I suspect in reality that in a crunch they'd abstain.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    Mr. Sandpit, three years of Honda engines has frightened off many a sponsor, it's true.

    But if the chassis is as good as last year and Renault is reasonable, good results should tempt some back.

    Mr. M, and yet, both major parties have benefited from the end of UKIP as an electoral force. That would the Conservatives as the only party of Leave with Remain voters having to either buy into Corbyn or throw their vote to the Lib Dems or SNP.

    It'd be like the SNP's strength in 2010 as the only party wanting to leave the UK whilst the unionist vote was split three ways (it wouldn't be quite as stark but similar).
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,629
    Mortimer said:

    Change isn't coming.

    If Corbyn suppers BREXIT Lab loses the next GE IMO

    Indeed.

    All the polling suggests an actual election fought on Brexit where Corbz is on the wrong side of the argument and Mrs May gets her majority....
    Agreed
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,284
    edited February 23
    rkrkrk said:

    I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.

    If she lost a vote on the customs union thing - would she have to go?
    And would a new leader have to call a GE?
    Yes and no.

    The FTPA complicates things.

    The government would have to lose an explicit vote of no confidence and Corbyn would have 14 days to try and form a government.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    It may well be that Parliament voted to stay in the Customs Union while still supporting leaving the EU and single market and ending free movement.

    If so May cannot have done any more
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 975
    So the next election is on a knife edge, with a major chance the most left wing major party leader could become PM. A man that has worked with regimes from Islamists to ethnonationalists to undermime the West. The Conservative Party has major challenges maintaining unity, and the PM works a difficult balancing act thrashing out a Brexit compromise between the different wings. But she does it, getting a position soft Brexiteers like Phil Hammond can support. Boris Johnson is dealt with firmly and Fox is fuming about some changes, but it looks like the agreement will hold.

    Then a handful of backbench MPs decide to take it upon themselves to nuke the compromise, undermine their own PM and tear open the wound. It's like they want to sabotage the Tories at the next election and let Corbyn in.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676

    The focus here is on Tory rebels, but similar issues arise for the hardline Brexiteer Labour MPs. In general, sitting MPs are not at risk. However, if they voted to save the Government over Brexit then I think that they really would be deselected - the swing vote of centre-left members who are not especially keen on left-wing politics would support any challenger saying "we need a Labour MP who doesn't help the Tories". This isn't a threat (I'm not in a position to deselect anyone), just a fact. I suspect in reality that in a crunch they'd abstain.

    Of course equally Tory associations in Tory Leave seats, including Broxtowe, may start to lose patience with their MPs voting consistemtly with Labour on Brexit
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    John_M said:

    Good morning all.

    Both parties are coalitions of voters. The arithmetic for both is awful. My view is May's polling numbers are being held up by those terrified of a Corbyn government (I'm not over-bothered by Jezza, it's Abbot, McDonnell and Milne who give me the dry heaves).

    If Labour were to row back a bit on their loopy economic policies in order to soothe the huddled masses and came out for some form of BINO, the Tories could well be in real trouble.

    Not if that includes leaving free movement in place, then a whole swathe of marginal Leave seats shift Tory
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,819

    rkrkrk said:

    I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.

    If she lost a vote on the customs union thing - would she have to go?
    And would a new leader have to call a GE?
    Yes and no.

    The FTPA complicates things.

    The government would have to lose an explicit vote of no confidence and Corbyn would have 14 days to try and form a government.
    I don't see why Clarke/Soubry et al. couldn't simply say (as Brexiteers have) - back our vision for Brexit or be replaced by a leader who will.

    Either TM caves, or she is replaced by Hunt/Rudd/someone keen to stay in Customs Union.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,417
    HYUFD said:

    It may well be that Parliament voted to stay in the Customs Union while still supporting leaving the EU and single market and ending free movement.

    If so May cannot have done any more

    At which point the EU turn around and say that’s cherry picking and not allowed. Then what?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    Australian Deputy PM and Nationals Leader Barnaby Joyce resigns after affair with a member of his staff

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-43165427
  • So glad we have a sovereign Parliament.

    I can see why Leavers were so tumescent about it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    edited February 23
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.

    If she lost a vote on the customs union thing - would she have to go?
    And would a new leader have to call a GE?
    Yes and no.

    The FTPA complicates things.

    The government would have to lose an explicit vote of no confidence and Corbyn would have 14 days to try and form a government.
    I don't see why Clarke/Soubry et al. couldn't simply say (as Brexiteers have) - back our vision for Brexit or be replaced by a leader who will.

    Either TM caves, or she is replaced by Hunt/Rudd/someone keen to stay in Customs Union.
    Uh no, if May caves and loses a no confidence vote Eurosceptic Tory MPs and party members will ensure she is replaced by a firm Leaver like Mogg, Gove or Boris not a former Remainer like Hunt or Rudd
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,475
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.

    If she lost a vote on the customs union thing - would she have to go?
    And would a new leader have to call a GE?
    Yes and no.

    The FTPA complicates things.

    The government would have to lose an explicit vote of no confidence and Corbyn would have 14 days to try and form a government.
    I don't see why Clarke/Soubry et al. couldn't simply say (as Brexiteers have) - back our vision for Brexit or be replaced by a leader who will.

    Either TM caves, or she is replaced by Hunt/Rudd/someone keen to stay in Customs Union.
    The usual answer to why a group of MPs don't do something they really really want to do:

    They don't have the numbers....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    It may well be that Parliament voted to stay in the Customs Union while still supporting leaving the EU and single market and ending free movement.

    If so May cannot have done any more

    At which point the EU turn around and say that’s cherry picking and not allowed. Then what?
    I don't think the EU have said they will stop the UK staying in the Customs Union if they want to use EU FTAs and abide by Customs Union rules
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    HYUFD said:

    John_M said:

    Good morning all.

    Both parties are coalitions of voters. The arithmetic for both is awful. My view is May's polling numbers are being held up by those terrified of a Corbyn government (I'm not over-bothered by Jezza, it's Abbot, McDonnell and Milne who give me the dry heaves).

    If Labour were to row back a bit on their loopy economic policies in order to soothe the huddled masses and came out for some form of BINO, the Tories could well be in real trouble.

    Not if that includes leaving free movement in place, then a whole swathe of marginal Leave seats shift Tory
    There are ways to reduce our pull factors whether there's freedom of movement or not. We've just chosen not to use them. Don't get me wrong; immigration at the levels we've seen in the noughties and beyond is unsustainable in my view, but we have lived through extraordinary times.

    If it were BINO, in future we'd put transitional controls on countries like Serbia, and European economies are now starting to grow properly. While the Brexit vote has certainly put some off coming here (and pushed others to leave), there are also fewer drivers for EU immigration.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,669
    rkrkrk said:

    I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.

    If she lost a vote on the customs union thing - would she have to go?
    And would a new leader have to call a GE?
    She wouldn't have to go. PMs have survived worse. Indeed, she has survived worse, as Mike points out. Would she go (including being pushed)? That's a different question.

    May's shield in this case would be that it would have been parliament that inflicted the defeat on her and that a new leader would still be in the same position unless they went back to the country (which no-one really wants to do).
  • Heck of a journey for Corbyn.

    I remember on the morning of June 24th 2016 he was demanding article 50 be triggered immediately.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,425
    I assume the government would do a deal with their soft Brexit rebels* and water down their regulatory and customs proposals, or most likely push it out until next year when the second cliff edge will have its effect.

    * noteworthy that you have to specify which group of Tory rebels you are referring to.
  • FF43 said:

    I assume the government would do a deal with their soft Brexit rebels* and water down their regulatory and customs proposals, or most likely push it out until next year when the second cliff edge will have its effect.

    * noteworthy that you have to specify which group of Tory rebels you are referring to.

    I remember being told prior to the referendum that only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.
  • rkrkrk said:

    I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.

    If she lost a vote on the customs union thing - would she have to go?
    And would a new leader have to call a GE?
    Yes and no.

    The FTPA complicates things.

    The government would have to lose an explicit vote of no confidence and Corbyn would have 14 days to try and form a government.
    I don't see anything in the FTPA that means Corbyn would get a chance to form a government.

    Before the FTPA the PM did not automatically resign following loss of a confidence vote. The PM usually called an election and remained as PM until after the election (see, for example, Callaghan in 1979). They only resigned if they lost the election. Nothing in the FTPA changes that. There is no requirement for the PM to resign after losing a confidence vote. So my view is that, if May loses a confidence vote, she has 14 days to turn it around. If she cannot do so there is an election. Corbyn only gets a chance to form a government if he wins that election.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,669
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.

    If she lost a vote on the customs union thing - would she have to go?
    And would a new leader have to call a GE?
    Yes and no.

    The FTPA complicates things.

    The government would have to lose an explicit vote of no confidence and Corbyn would have 14 days to try and form a government.
    I don't see why Clarke/Soubry et al. couldn't simply say (as Brexiteers have) - back our vision for Brexit or be replaced by a leader who will.

    Either TM caves, or she is replaced by Hunt/Rudd/someone keen to stay in Customs Union.
    Who is the 'et al'?

    The main reason why May has not been replaced - apart from the disruption it would do to the Brexit process itself - is because MPs can't be sure that they'd get the sort of leader they'd like to replace her. However, while a centrist like Hunt could well win, that's almost certainly only the case if the election wasn't triggered by a Brexit falling out, where tempers are lower and where concentration is on other matters.

    Were May to be critically wounded politically by a ex-Remain action, Brexit would be the prism all decisions would be viewed through and only true believers need apply.

    But the simple maths is that whereas the ERG have the numbers to force a No Confidence vote (a point about the letter this last week that hasn't been sufficiently emphasised), the Continuity Remain wing doesn't, by a long way.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    John_M said:

    HYUFD said:

    John_M said:

    Good morning all.

    Both parties are coalitions of voters. The arithmetic for both is awful. My view is May's polling numbers are being held up by those terrified of a Corbyn government (I'm not over-bothered by Jezza, it's Abbot, McDonnell and Milne who give me the dry heaves).

    If Labour were to row back a bit on their loopy economic policies in order to soothe the huddled masses and came out for some form of BINO, the Tories could well be in real trouble.

    Not if that includes leaving free movement in place, then a whole swathe of marginal Leave seats shift Tory
    There are ways to reduce our pull factors whether there's freedom of movement or not. We've just chosen not to use them. Don't get me wrong; immigration at the levels we've seen in the noughties and beyond is unsustainable in my view, but we have lived through extraordinary times.

    If it were BINO, in future we'd put transitional controls on countries like Serbia, and European economies are now starting to grow properly. While the Brexit vote has certainly put some off coming here (and pushed others to leave), there are also fewer drivers for EU immigration.
    We can't put in proper transitional controls on migration from most Eastern European nations now, that chance was lost when Blair refused to do so from 2004 to 2011. Imposing some in future on potentual future EU joiners like Serbia is all hypothetical
  • rkrkrk said:

    I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.

    If she lost a vote on the customs union thing - would she have to go?
    And would a new leader have to call a GE?
    Yes and no.

    The FTPA complicates things.

    The government would have to lose an explicit vote of no confidence and Corbyn would have 14 days to try and form a government.
    I don't see anything in the FTPA that means Corbyn would get a chance to form a government.

    Before the FTPA the PM did not automatically resign following loss of a confidence vote. The PM usually called an election and remained as PM until after the election (see, for example, Callaghan in 1979). They only resigned if they lost the election. Nothing in the FTPA changes that. There is no requirement for the PM to resign after losing a confidence vote. So my view is that, if May loses a confidence vote, she has 14 days to turn it around. If she cannot do so there is an election. Corbyn only gets a chance to form a government if he wins that election.
    Under the FTPA, Parliament’s fixed five-year term can only be truncated in two ways. First, if more than two thirds of the House of Commons vote to call an election – and that means 434 of the 650 MPs, not just two thirds of those in the chamber.

    The second is more complicated. If a motion of no confidence is passed or there is a failed vote of confidence, there is a 14-day period in which to pass an act of confidence in a new government. If no such vote is passed, a new election must be held, probably a mere 17 working days later.

    So it gives Corbyn the opportunity to try and form a government in those 14 days.

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/not-so-fixed-term-parliaments-act
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,463
    If May gets an agreed line which the whole Cabinet supports she wins. The risk for her is that some splinter breaks off with a resignation either because the line is too hard or too soft.

    The challenge is to find a line that everyone can sign up to which has some prospect of being acceptable to the EU. That will be genuinely difficult. The stakes are very high for May and the Tories. Any rebels need to think carefully about the consequences of their actions.
  • FF43 said:

    I assume the government would do a deal with their soft Brexit rebels* and water down their regulatory and customs proposals, or most likely push it out until next year when the second cliff edge will have its effect.

    * noteworthy that you have to specify which group of Tory rebels you are referring to.

    I remember being told prior to the referendum that only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.
    Looking from the outside I would suggest it is united. 2 MPs who will never be reconciled to Brexit does not make for a split.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,669

    rkrkrk said:

    I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.

    If she lost a vote on the customs union thing - would she have to go?
    And would a new leader have to call a GE?
    Yes and no.

    The FTPA complicates things.

    The government would have to lose an explicit vote of no confidence and Corbyn would have 14 days to try and form a government.
    I don't see anything in the FTPA that means Corbyn would get a chance to form a government.

    Before the FTPA the PM did not automatically resign following loss of a confidence vote. The PM usually called an election and remained as PM until after the election (see, for example, Callaghan in 1979). They only resigned if they lost the election. Nothing in the FTPA changes that. There is no requirement for the PM to resign after losing a confidence vote. So my view is that, if May loses a confidence vote, she has 14 days to turn it around. If she cannot do so there is an election. Corbyn only gets a chance to form a government if he wins that election.
    While that's technically true, the provisions of the Act clearly imply 2 weeks in which attempts should be made to form a new government. That might - as you say - involve May trying to form a new government but equally, it might involve either a different Conservative leader or the leader of another party doing so.

    While it's improbable given current numbers, attitudes and processes that it'd happen like this, if it became clear that an alternative government was available to the one that had been No Confidenced, then the head of it could expect an invite to the Palace whether or not the PM wanted to go to the country or not.

    In any case, May won't lose a confidence vote unless she really upsets the DUP.
  • rkrkrk said:

    I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.

    If she lost a vote on the customs union thing - would she have to go?
    And would a new leader have to call a GE?
    Yes and no.

    The FTPA complicates things.

    The government would have to lose an explicit vote of no confidence and Corbyn would have 14 days to try and form a government.
    I don't see anything in the FTPA that means Corbyn would get a chance to form a government.

    Before the FTPA the PM did not automatically resign following loss of a confidence vote. The PM usually called an election and remained as PM until after the election (see, for example, Callaghan in 1979). They only resigned if they lost the election. Nothing in the FTPA changes that. There is no requirement for the PM to resign after losing a confidence vote. So my view is that, if May loses a confidence vote, she has 14 days to turn it around. If she cannot do so there is an election. Corbyn only gets a chance to form a government if he wins that election.
    While that's technically true, the provisions of the Act clearly imply 2 weeks in which attempts should be made to form a new government. That might - as you say - involve May trying to form a new government but equally, it might involve either a different Conservative leader or the leader of another party doing so.

    While it's improbable given current numbers, attitudes and processes that it'd happen like this, if it became clear that an alternative government was available to the one that had been No Confidenced, then the head of it could expect an invite to the Palace whether or not the PM wanted to go to the country or not.

    In any case, May won't lose a confidence vote unless she really upsets the DUP.
    Lucky for her Northern Ireland doesn’t feature heavily in the Brexit deal.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,077

    rkrkrk said:

    I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.

    If she lost a vote on the customs union thing - would she have to go?
    And would a new leader have to call a GE?
    Yes and no.

    The FTPA complicates things.

    The government would have to lose an explicit vote of no confidence and Corbyn would have 14 days to try and form a government.
    I don't see anything in the FTPA that means Corbyn would get a chance to form a government.

    Before the FTPA the PM did not automatically resign following loss of a confidence vote. The PM usually called an election and remained as PM until after the election (see, for example, Callaghan in 1979). They only resigned if they lost the election. Nothing in the FTPA changes that. There is no requirement for the PM to resign after losing a confidence vote. So my view is that, if May loses a confidence vote, she has 14 days to turn it around. If she cannot do so there is an election. Corbyn only gets a chance to form a government if he wins that election.
    From James Strong's recent paper, 'Confidence and Caretakers: Some Less-Obvious Implications of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act':

    "a Prime Minister defeated on a no-confidence motion might refuse to resign, arguing that s/he cannot recommend a successor. This could be done even if an alternative candidate was in fact capable of winning a confidence vote."
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,669

    Heck of a journey for Corbyn.

    I remember on the morning of June 24th 2016 he was demanding article 50 be triggered immediately.

    The EU is not really a core issue for Corbyn. It matters but it's not one he'll go to the line on (and politically, he can't quite go to the line because he doesn't have the numbers, either in parliament or among the membership).
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    edited February 23
    HYUFD said:

    John_M said:

    HYUFD said:

    John_M said:

    Good morning all.

    Both parties are coalitions of voters. The arithmetic for both is awful. My view is May's polling numbers are being held up by those terrified of a Corbyn government (I'm not over-bothered by Jezza, it's Abbot, McDonnell and Milne who give me the dry heaves).

    If Labour were to row back a bit on their loopy economic policies in order to soothe the huddled masses and came out for some form of BINO, the Tories could well be in real trouble.

    Not if that includes leaving free movement in place, then a whole swathe of marginal Leave seats shift Tory
    There are ways to reduce our pull factors whether there's freedom of movement or not. We've just chosen not to use them. Don't get me wrong; immigration at the levels we've seen in the noughties and beyond is unsustainable in my view, but we have lived through extraordinary times.

    If it were BINO, in future we'd put transitional controls on countries like Serbia, and European economies are now starting to grow properly. While the Brexit vote has certainly put some off coming here (and pushed others to leave), there are also fewer drivers for EU immigration.
    We can't put in proper transitional controls on migration from most Eastern European nations now, that chance was lost when Blair refused to do so from 2004 to 2011. Imposing some in future on potentual future EU joiners like Serbia is all hypothetical
    Transitional controls are part and parcel of accession treaties. Of course we can't reimpose transitional controls on the A8, but we had them on the A2, and we'd have had transitional controls on the A4. Apologies for butchering the tenses :).
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,184

    rkrkrk said:

    I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.

    If she lost a vote on the customs union thing - would she have to go?
    And would a new leader have to call a GE?
    Yes and no.

    The FTPA complicates things.

    The government would have to lose an explicit vote of no confidence and Corbyn would have 14 days to try and form a government.
    I don't see anything in the FTPA that means Corbyn would get a chance to form a government.

    Before the FTPA the PM did not automatically resign following loss of a confidence vote. The PM usually called an election and remained as PM until after the election (see, for example, Callaghan in 1979). They only resigned if they lost the election. Nothing in the FTPA changes that. There is no requirement for the PM to resign after losing a confidence vote. So my view is that, if May loses a confidence vote, she has 14 days to turn it around. If she cannot do so there is an election. Corbyn only gets a chance to form a government if he wins that election.
    From James Strong's recent paper, 'Confidence and Caretakers: Some Less-Obvious Implications of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act':

    "a Prime Minister defeated on a no-confidence motion might refuse to resign, arguing that s/he cannot recommend a successor. This could be done even if an alternative candidate was in fact capable of winning a confidence vote."
    In practice, it's unthinkable that an old-school Conservative Prime Minister (and I would put Theresa May in this category) would put the Queen in such an invidious position.

    If the Conservatives were defeated on a vote of confidence (a Spartan If if ever I saw one), I expect Jeremy Corbyn could and would form a minority government without an election, as the Conservatives abstained on votes of confidence. The Conservatives would almost certainly be hopelessly split for that to have happened, would not want a general election and would need time to sort themselves out.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,077

    rkrkrk said:

    I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.

    If she lost a vote on the customs union thing - would she have to go?
    And would a new leader have to call a GE?
    Yes and no.

    The FTPA complicates things.

    The government would have to lose an explicit vote of no confidence and Corbyn would have 14 days to try and form a government.
    I don't see anything in the FTPA that means Corbyn would get a chance to form a government.

    Before the FTPA the PM did not automatically resign following loss of a confidence vote. The PM usually called an election and remained as PM until after the election (see, for example, Callaghan in 1979). They only resigned if they lost the election. Nothing in the FTPA changes that. There is no requirement for the PM to resign after losing a confidence vote. So my view is that, if May loses a confidence vote, she has 14 days to turn it around. If she cannot do so there is an election. Corbyn only gets a chance to form a government if he wins that election.
    Under the FTPA, Parliament’s fixed five-year term can only be truncated in two ways. First, if more than two thirds of the House of Commons vote to call an election – and that means 434 of the 650 MPs, not just two thirds of those in the chamber.

    The second is more complicated. If a motion of no confidence is passed or there is a failed vote of confidence, there is a 14-day period in which to pass an act of confidence in a new government. If no such vote is passed, a new election must be held, probably a mere 17 working days later.

    So it gives Corbyn the opportunity to try and form a government in those 14 days.

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/not-so-fixed-term-parliaments-act
    Unless May asks the Queen to prorogue Parliament and her wish is granted. Then there is no meeting of MPs to engage in an attempt to form a government. Sounds far fetched, but did happen apparently in Canada.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,669

    rkrkrk said:

    I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.

    If she lost a vote on the customs union thing - would she have to go?
    And would a new leader have to call a GE?
    Yes and no.

    The FTPA complicates things.

    The government would have to lose an explicit vote of no confidence and Corbyn would have 14 days to try and form a government.
    I don't see anything in the FTPA that means Corbyn would get a chance to form a government.

    Before the FTPA the PM did not automatically resign following loss of a confidence vote. The PM usually called an election and remained as PM until after the election (see, for example, Callaghan in 1979). They only resigned if they lost the election. Nothing in the FTPA changes that. There is no requirement for the PM to resign after losing a confidence vote. So my view is that, if May loses a confidence vote, she has 14 days to turn it around. If she cannot do so there is an election. Corbyn only gets a chance to form a government if he wins that election.
    From James Strong's recent paper, 'Confidence and Caretakers: Some Less-Obvious Implications of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act':

    "a Prime Minister defeated on a no-confidence motion might refuse to resign, arguing that s/he cannot recommend a successor. This could be done even if an alternative candidate was in fact capable of winning a confidence vote."
    In which case - and if there was hard evidence of that support in the House - the Queen could simply invite that alternative candidate to form a government.

    There is no legal requirement for a PM (or any other minister) to resign on a change of government. Their appointment expires when a new appointment is made.

    (This is nothing new and is the reason for the Royal Reserve Power to appoint and dismiss Prime Ministers: if a PM lost a general election, they could theoretically refuse to resign, even if defeated in the House. Indeed, under the FTPA, if a defeated PM couldn't be removed after losing a confidence vote, it'd be a short cut to an immediate second election before the winning party had chance to govern).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,417
    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    It may well be that Parliament voted to stay in the Customs Union while still supporting leaving the EU and single market and ending free movement.

    If so May cannot have done any more

    At which point the EU turn around and say that’s cherry picking and not allowed. Then what?
    I don't think the EU have said they will stop the UK staying in the Customs Union if they want to use EU FTAs and abide by Customs Union rules
    I wouldn’t put it past their negotiators to make life extra difficult if it looks like they have leverage. If Parliament vote that we stay in the Customs Union we will probably find that this will cost us more than EU membership did.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,284
    edited February 23
    Stephen Bush wins the internet today.

    MANAFORT THE LAW. THE LAW WON.


    UNITED STATES: Robert Mueller has brought further charges against Donald Trump's former campaign chief Paul Manafort. Manafort is accused of using fraudulently obtained loans and tax cheating tricks.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,792
    Mogg: "Harder, harder!"

    Soubry: "Softer, softer!"

    How can May possibly keep all of her MPs on side?

    If only she had called a Brexit election and won a 100-seat majority, could could ignore the two fringes. As it is, she's a bit stuck.

    I think the Soubreyites and Labour have it in their hands to determine the sort of Brexit deal we aim for, since it has to be put to a Meaningful Vote in parliament.

    The Moggites can threaten to bring down the PM, but they are a minority in parliament. They can't determine the form of Brexit and get it passed by the Commons.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    Mr. Sandpit, that's the aim of some. If leaving offers as few benefits as possible and the highest costs reasonably imaginable, then they'll plea "Why don't we just stay in?"

    It's why the second referendum argument has always been detrimental to the national interest, because it provides the opportunity and motive for both the EU and the most pro-EU of UK politicians to get the worst deal for the UK in a bid to reverse the referendum result.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,669

    rkrkrk said:

    I still think it is more likely the ERG brings down Mrs May/The Government than the likes of Soubry and Clarke.

    If she lost a vote on the customs union thing - would she have to go?
    And would a new leader have to call a GE?
    Yes and no.

    The FTPA complicates things.

    The government would have to lose an explicit vote of no confidence and Corbyn would have 14 days to try and form a government.
    I don't see anything in the FTPA that means Corbyn would get a chance to form a government.

    Before the FTPA the PM did not automatically resign following loss of a confidence vote. The PM usually called an election and remained as PM until after the election (see, for example, Callaghan in 1979). They only resigned if they lost the election. Nothing in the FTPA changes that. There is no requirement for the PM to resign after losing a confidence vote. So my view is that, if May loses a confidence vote, she has 14 days to turn it around. If she cannot do so there is an election. Corbyn only gets a chance to form a government if he wins that election.
    From James Strong's recent paper, 'Confidence and Caretakers: Some Less-Obvious Implications of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act':

    "a Prime Minister defeated on a no-confidence motion might refuse to resign, arguing that s/he cannot recommend a successor. This could be done even if an alternative candidate was in fact capable of winning a confidence vote."
    In practice, it's unthinkable that an old-school Conservative Prime Minister (and I would put Theresa May in this category) would put the Queen in such an invidious position.

    If the Conservatives were defeated on a vote of confidence (a Spartan If if ever I saw one), I expect Jeremy Corbyn could and would form a minority government without an election, as the Conservatives abstained on votes of confidence. The Conservatives would almost certainly be hopelessly split for that to have happened, would not want a general election and would need time to sort themselves out.
    I think it'd depend on circumstances. The Tories might get a couple of days at most to choose a new leader given current numbers.

    To take a clearer historical parallel, suppose Blair lost first the Iraq War vote and then, doubling down, a Confidence vote he tied to his Iraq policy, and that the FTPA had been in operation. In those circumstances, it's almost certain that the cabinet and PLP would have rapidly nominated Brown to form a new government and a Confidence vote would have been carried comfortably.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,755
    Morning all :)

    Slightly melodramatic from OGH this morning - I suspect we are still a fair way from a change of Government as distinct from a change of Conservative Party leader.

    I imagine Soubry's motion is causing both leaderships some headache as both May and Corbyn are seeking to hold together potentially fractious coalitions on the A50 issue.

    I also imagine the intention is to smoke out both leaderships and commit them to actual policy positions rather than vague obfuscations and fence sitting. That won't be pleasant for either May or Corbyn.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    John_M said:

    HYUFD said:

    John_M said:

    HYUFD said:

    John_M said:

    Good morning all.

    Both parties are coalitions of voters. The arithmetic for both is awful. My view is May's polling numbers are being held up by those terrified of a Corbyn government (I'm not over-bothered by Jezza, it's Abbot, McDonnell and Milne who give me the dry heaves).

    If Labour were to row back a bit on their loopy economic policies in order to soothe the huddled masses and came out for some form of BINO, the Tories could well be in real trouble.

    Not if that includes leaving free movement in place, then a whole swathe of marginal Leave seats shift Tory
    There are ways to reduce our pull factors whether there's freedom of movement or not. We've just chosen not to use them. Don't get me wrong; immigration at the levels we've seen in the noughties and beyond is unsustainable in my view, but we have lived through extraordinary times.

    If it were BINO, in future we'd put transitional controls on countries like Serbia, and European economies are now starting to grow properly. While the Brexit vote has certainly put some off coming here (and pushed others to leave), there are also fewer drivers for EU immigration.
    We can't put in proper transitional controls on migration from most Eastern European nations now, that chance was lost when Blair refused to do so from 2004 to 2011. Imposing some in future on potentual future EU joiners like Serbia is all hypothetical
    Transitional controls are part and parcel of accession treaties. Of course we can't reimpose transitional controls on the A8, but we had them on the A2, and we'd have had transitional controls on the A4. Apologies for butchering the tenses :).
    Yes but it was the lack of them on the A8 which was a key reason for the Leave vote
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Slightly melodramatic from OGH this morning - I suspect we are still a fair way from a change of Government as distinct from a change of Conservative Party leader.

    I imagine Soubry's motion is causing both leaderships some headache as both May and Corbyn are seeking to hold together potentially fractious coalitions on the A50 issue.

    I also imagine the intention is to smoke out both leaderships and commit them to actual policy positions rather than vague obfuscations and fence sitting. That won't be pleasant for either May or Corbyn.

    From Abbot's remarks it looks like they're going to try and resell freedom of movement to the masses, by, in a remarkable departure from normal Labour tactics, throwing money at the problem.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    It may well be that Parliament voted to stay in the Customs Union while still supporting leaving the EU and single market and ending free movement.

    If so May cannot have done any more

    At which point the EU turn around and say that’s cherry picking and not allowed. Then what?
    I don't think the EU have said they will stop the UK staying in the Customs Union if they want to use EU FTAs and abide by Customs Union rules
    I wouldn’t put it past their negotiators to make life extra difficult if it looks like they have leverage. If Parliament vote that we stay in the Customs Union we will probably find that this will cost us more than EU membership did.
    Which would likely produce a further anti EU backlash
  • If you ever wonder why JohnO and myself think Andrew Bridgen is a moron, exhibit 1,642.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,184



    In practice, it's unthinkable that an old-school Conservative Prime Minister (and I would put Theresa May in this category) would put the Queen in such an invidious position.

    If the Conservatives were defeated on a vote of confidence (a Spartan If if ever I saw one), I expect Jeremy Corbyn could and would form a minority government without an election, as the Conservatives abstained on votes of confidence. The Conservatives would almost certainly be hopelessly split for that to have happened, would not want a general election and would need time to sort themselves out.

    I think it'd depend on circumstances. The Tories might get a couple of days at most to choose a new leader given current numbers.

    To take a clearer historical parallel, suppose Blair lost first the Iraq War vote and then, doubling down, a Confidence vote he tied to his Iraq policy, and that the FTPA had been in operation. In those circumstances, it's almost certain that the cabinet and PLP would have rapidly nominated Brown to form a new government and a Confidence vote would have been carried comfortably.
    With the benefit of hindsight I think you gave the Conservatives the best advice after the general election last year - they should have gone into opposition and sorted themselves out.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    John_M said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Slightly melodramatic from OGH this morning - I suspect we are still a fair way from a change of Government as distinct from a change of Conservative Party leader.

    I imagine Soubry's motion is causing both leaderships some headache as both May and Corbyn are seeking to hold together potentially fractious coalitions on the A50 issue.

    I also imagine the intention is to smoke out both leaderships and commit them to actual policy positions rather than vague obfuscations and fence sitting. That won't be pleasant for either May or Corbyn.

    From Abbot's remarks it looks like they're going to try and resell freedom of movement to the masses, by, in a remarkable departure from normal Labour tactics, throwing money at the problem.
    Both Corbyn and Thornberry have made clear Labour will end free movement, they are only talking about staying in a Customs Union not the Single Market
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,475
    John_M said:

    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Slightly melodramatic from OGH this morning - I suspect we are still a fair way from a change of Government as distinct from a change of Conservative Party leader.

    I imagine Soubry's motion is causing both leaderships some headache as both May and Corbyn are seeking to hold together potentially fractious coalitions on the A50 issue.

    I also imagine the intention is to smoke out both leaderships and commit them to actual policy positions rather than vague obfuscations and fence sitting. That won't be pleasant for either May or Corbyn.

    From Abbot's remarks it looks like they're going to try and resell freedom of movement to the masses, by, in a remarkable departure from normal Labour tactics, throwing money at the problem.
    :)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 12,493
    Elliot said:

    So the next election is on a knife edge, with a major chance the most left wing major party leader could become PM. A man that has worked with regimes from Islamists to ethnonationalists to undermime the West. The Conservative Party has major challenges maintaining unity, and the PM works a difficult balancing act thrashing out a Brexit compromise between the different wings. But she does it, getting a position soft Brexiteers like Phil Hammond can support. Boris Johnson is dealt with firmly and Fox is fuming about some changes, but it looks like the agreement will hold.

    Then a handful of backbench MPs decide to take it upon themselves to nuke the compromise, undermine their own PM and tear open the wound. It's like they want to sabotage the Tories at the next election and let Corbyn in.

    The Cons will not "let Corbyn in", the voters will vote him in.

    Now, what he promises, what they vote for, and what he delivers would make for an interesting venn diagram, of course.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,417

    Mr. Sandpit, that's the aim of some. If leaving offers as few benefits as possible and the highest costs reasonably imaginable, then they'll plea "Why don't we just stay in?"

    It's why the second referendum argument has always been detrimental to the national interest, because it provides the opportunity and motive for both the EU and the most pro-EU of UK politicians to get the worst deal for the UK in a bid to reverse the referendum result.

    Indeed so.
    A good article from Gisela Stuart on how the EU negotiates, suggesting that their plan is to stop us actually leaving by offering either a crap deal or an extension to the “transition” period such that it lasts for decades.
    http://brexitcentral.com/government-must-not-allow-uk-drift-permanent-eu-purgatory/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    TOPPING said:

    Elliot said:

    So the next election is on a knife edge, with a major chance the most left wing major party leader could become PM. A man that has worked with regimes from Islamists to ethnonationalists to undermime the West. The Conservative Party has major challenges maintaining unity, and the PM works a difficult balancing act thrashing out a Brexit compromise between the different wings. But she does it, getting a position soft Brexiteers like Phil Hammond can support. Boris Johnson is dealt with firmly and Fox is fuming about some changes, but it looks like the agreement will hold.

    Then a handful of backbench MPs decide to take it upon themselves to nuke the compromise, undermine their own PM and tear open the wound. It's like they want to sabotage the Tories at the next election and let Corbyn in.

    The Cons will not "let Corbyn in", the voters will vote him in.

    Now, what he promises, what they vote for, and what he delivers would make for an interesting venn diagram, of course.
    Or more particularly the SNP will let Corbyn in on current polling
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,661
    Sandpit said:

    Mr. Sandpit, that's the aim of some. If leaving offers as few benefits as possible and the highest costs reasonably imaginable, then they'll plea "Why don't we just stay in?"

    It's why the second referendum argument has always been detrimental to the national interest, because it provides the opportunity and motive for both the EU and the most pro-EU of UK politicians to get the worst deal for the UK in a bid to reverse the referendum result.

    Indeed so.
    A good article from Gisela Stuart on how the EU negotiates, suggesting that their plan is to stop us actually leaving by offering either a crap deal or an extension to the “transition” period such that it lasts for decades.
    http://brexitcentral.com/government-must-not-allow-uk-drift-permanent-eu-purgatory/
    The Governments 'cake and eat it' strategy was doomed to fail.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465
    Sandpit said:

    The problem the rebels don’t seem to understand is that the default, if they keep voting things down, is that we leave the EU with no deal. All their posturing and trying to bind the hands of our negotiators just makes a crap last-minute deal all the more likely.

    And the only person with a smile on his face is the Moggster......
  • chrisoxonchrisoxon Posts: 204



    In practice, it's unthinkable that an old-school Conservative Prime Minister (and I would put Theresa May in this category) would put the Queen in such an invidious position.

    If the Conservatives were defeated on a vote of confidence (a Spartan If if ever I saw one), I expect Jeremy Corbyn could and would form a minority government without an election, as the Conservatives abstained on votes of confidence. The Conservatives would almost certainly be hopelessly split for that to have happened, would not want a general election and would need time to sort themselves out.

    I think it'd depend on circumstances. The Tories might get a couple of days at most to choose a new leader given current numbers.

    To take a clearer historical parallel, suppose Blair lost first the Iraq War vote and then, doubling down, a Confidence vote he tied to his Iraq policy, and that the FTPA had been in operation. In those circumstances, it's almost certain that the cabinet and PLP would have rapidly nominated Brown to form a new government and a Confidence vote would have been carried comfortably.
    With the benefit of hindsight I think you gave the Conservatives the best advice after the general election last year - they should have gone into opposition and sorted themselves out.
    A couple of extra seats for Labour and that might have been an option (though not one I imagine the Conservatives would have taken, they would have at least tested the confidence of the house) but as it stands why would the Conservatives offer confidence to a minority Labour government? Abstaining when your votes would defeat is tacit endorsement...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,224
    HYUFD said:

    The focus here is on Tory rebels, but similar issues arise for the hardline Brexiteer Labour MPs. In general, sitting MPs are not at risk. However, if they voted to save the Government over Brexit then I think that they really would be deselected - the swing vote of centre-left members who are not especially keen on left-wing politics would support any challenger saying "we need a Labour MP who doesn't help the Tories". This isn't a threat (I'm not in a position to deselect anyone), just a fact. I suspect in reality that in a crunch they'd abstain.

    Of course equally Tory associations in Tory Leave seats, including Broxtowe, may start to lose patience with their MPs voting consistemtly with Labour on Brexit
    I know many Broxtowe Conservatives quite well. There is a minority who have never liked Anna, some quite vehemently, but the majority are pretty straightforward unideological Tories who like the fact that she's held the marginal seat. Deselection won't happen unless she actually resigns from the party.

    In general MPs on both sides in marginals are safer from deselection than MPs in safe seats, both because the troops have fought hand-to-hand alongside them in the front line, and because the seat is likely to be held by an insurgent, even if the evicted MP tries to stand as an independent.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,295
    If you think it's hard negotiating on behalf of the UK, think about poor old Barnier. He has 27 competing factions to deal with - that's one main reason why the EU wants a single federated union.

    It's also why he can't give concessions and allow us to cherry-pick. What one gets (and we're still a member), they all will want.

    Their preferred solution is for us to crawl back. We can then be an example to back-sliders. The next best option is BINO - no damage done there - 'Ze English, how silly they are, and so easy to fool'.

    So Barnier's best plan to delay as much as possible, make it as bureaucratic as possible, and sit back while the UK get blamed by all sides for the delay. Who can blame him for those tactics? It's what I would do in that situation.

    What would he dislike most? If the UK called his bluff. OK, if no deal, so be it. May probably won't do it for the obvious political damage. Jezza is sitting tight, but hoping to ramp up the pressure when it's safe to do so.

    This has caused a serious split in the country. The ignored have spoken, and a few of the losers are so used to having their own way, they can't comprehend their failure. They'd rather the UK stuttered and failed than it succeed in this project. That's the most disappointing aspect.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,184
    chrisoxon said:



    In practice, it's unthinkable that an old-school Conservative Prime Minister (and I would put Theresa May in this category) would put the Queen in such an invidious position.

    If the Conservatives were defeated on a vote of confidence (a Spartan If if ever I saw one), I expect Jeremy Corbyn could and would form a minority government without an election, as the Conservatives abstained on votes of confidence. The Conservatives would almost certainly be hopelessly split for that to have happened, would not want a general election and would need time to sort themselves out.

    I think it'd depend on circumstances. The Tories might get a couple of days at most to choose a new leader given current numbers.

    To take a clearer historical parallel, suppose Blair lost first the Iraq War vote and then, doubling down, a Confidence vote he tied to his Iraq policy, and that the FTPA had been in operation. In those circumstances, it's almost certain that the cabinet and PLP would have rapidly nominated Brown to form a new government and a Confidence vote would have been carried comfortably.
    With the benefit of hindsight I think you gave the Conservatives the best advice after the general election last year - they should have gone into opposition and sorted themselves out.
    A couple of extra seats for Labour and that might have been an option (though not one I imagine the Conservatives would have taken, they would have at least tested the confidence of the house) but as it stands why would the Conservatives offer confidence to a minority Labour government? Abstaining when your votes would defeat is tacit endorsement...
    Let him dandle, unable to do much in the way of positive action, until you're ready to replace him.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,792
    Scott_P said:
    So it is now a cross-party amendment. And note that it uses the word "a" rather than "the" in reference to Customs Union.

    I think it will pass.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,726

    Mogg: "Harder, harder!"

    Soubry: "Softer, softer!"

    How can May possibly keep all of her MPs on side?

    If only she had called a Brexit election and won a 100-seat majority, could could ignore the two fringes. As it is, she's a bit stuck.

    I think the Soubreyites and Labour have it in their hands to determine the sort of Brexit deal we aim for, since it has to be put to a Meaningful Vote in parliament.

    The Moggites can threaten to bring down the PM, but they are a minority in parliament. They can't determine the form of Brexit and get it passed by the Commons.

    Spot on. The Moggites don't have the numbers either to determine the form of Brexit or defeat Mrs May in a vote of confidence in her leadership.

    As the various Brexit related bills come through the HOC and HOL over the coming months I can see amendments being passed that move us closer and closer to BINO.

    Mrs May will survive any no confidence vote by Tory MPs. The government will survive any no-confidence vote in parliament. The Tories will not vote for an early election.

    Mrs May will tell the apoplectic Moggites "Sorry - we just don't have the numbers" while quietly smiling to herself. It seems quite straightforward to me.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,661

    FF43 said:

    I assume the government would do a deal with their soft Brexit rebels* and water down their regulatory and customs proposals, or most likely push it out until next year when the second cliff edge will have its effect.

    * noteworthy that you have to specify which group of Tory rebels you are referring to.

    I remember being told prior to the referendum that only a Leave victory would unite the Tory party.
    Looking from the outside I would suggest it is united. 2 MPs who will never be reconciled to Brexit does not make for a split.
    Google "tories split on brexit"
    About 1,250,000 results (0.47 seconds)
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,419


    It's why the second referendum argument has always been detrimental to the national interest, because it provides the opportunity and motive for both the EU and the most pro-EU of UK politicians to get the worst deal for the UK in a bid to reverse the referendum result.

    That motivation already exists. Continuity Remainers want Brexit to be a disaster so they can be proven right. I know I do.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,669

    If you ever wonder why JohnO and myself think Andrew Bridgen is a moron, exhibit 1,642.

    To be fair, it *could* be done in an afternoon.

    Davis: "We'd like a FTA with the EU".

    Barnier: "OK. We'll need to know your priorities, identify whether we can reconcile them with EU policies and law, develop agreements where that can be done, then set up joint legal drafting committees and so on."

    Davis: "That sounds like it might take quite a long time."

    Barnier: "Years."

    Davis: "Can we run a faster process?"

    Barnier: "What sort of deadline were you thinking of?"

    Davis: "Tea-time."

    Barnier (raises eyebrow, reaches under desk): "Here's a 2500-page draft incorporating all the UK's current FTA obligations and working practices with the EU into a treaty."

    Davis: "Where do I sign?"
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,669



    In practice, it's unthinkable that an old-school Conservative Prime Minister (and I would put Theresa May in this category) would put the Queen in such an invidious position.

    If the Conservatives were defeated on a vote of confidence (a Spartan If if ever I saw one), I expect Jeremy Corbyn could and would form a minority government without an election, as the Conservatives abstained on votes of confidence. The Conservatives would almost certainly be hopelessly split for that to have happened, would not want a general election and would need time to sort themselves out.

    I think it'd depend on circumstances. The Tories might get a couple of days at most to choose a new leader given current numbers.

    To take a clearer historical parallel, suppose Blair lost first the Iraq War vote and then, doubling down, a Confidence vote he tied to his Iraq policy, and that the FTPA had been in operation. In those circumstances, it's almost certain that the cabinet and PLP would have rapidly nominated Brown to form a new government and a Confidence vote would have been carried comfortably.
    With the benefit of hindsight I think you gave the Conservatives the best advice after the general election last year - they should have gone into opposition and sorted themselves out.
    Cheers. Water under the bridge now.
  • Completely OT while it is fresh in my mind.

    A fascinating 'Bottom Line' on Radio 4 last night with Evan Davis. Talking about share ownership of British companies. 54% of all shares in publicly listed UK companies are now owned by foreign investors - the US and China being the big investors these days.

    UK Pension funds now hold only 3% of publicly owned shares. This is a phenomenal drop over the last decade.

    UK Insurance companies hold 5% of publicly owned shares.

    Unit Trusts hold 10%.

    There has been a huge transformation in share ownership over the last couple of decades.
  • tysontyson Posts: 4,350

    Mogg: "Harder, harder!"

    Soubry: "Softer, softer!"

    How can May possibly keep all of her MPs on side?

    If only she had called a Brexit election and won a 100-seat majority, could could ignore the two fringes. As it is, she's a bit stuck.

    I think the Soubreyites and Labour have it in their hands to determine the sort of Brexit deal we aim for, since it has to be put to a Meaningful Vote in parliament.

    The Moggites can threaten to bring down the PM, but they are a minority in parliament. They can't determine the form of Brexit and get it passed by the Commons.


    Exactly what I’ve been saying.....the Parliamentary arithmetic means the only Brexit capable of being passed is one in name early.....the Moggwits can bluster all they like....

    The only way to their hard Brexit wet dream is through a second vote which they would lose. So, there is no way to a hard Brexit.

    It would all be funny if it wasn’t so fucking chaotic whilst turning the UK into the international laughing stock, on par with the US and only a notch higher than North Korea. That said, in a week or so Italy is going to commit hari kari...with yes....the return of Berlusconi, and this time he is more idiotic than ever. Be afraid, be very afraid.




  • Dura_Ace said:


    It's why the second referendum argument has always been detrimental to the national interest, because it provides the opportunity and motive for both the EU and the most pro-EU of UK politicians to get the worst deal for the UK in a bid to reverse the referendum result.

    That motivation already exists. Continuity Remainers want Brexit to be a disaster so they can be proven right. I know I do.

    Putting your own pride before the good of the country.

    Classy
  • chrisoxonchrisoxon Posts: 204

    chrisoxon said:



    In practice, it's unthinkable that an old-school Conservative Prime Minister (and I would put Theresa May in this category) would put the Queen in such an invidious position.

    If the Conservatives were defeated on a vote of confidence (a Spartan If if ever I saw one), I expect Jeremy Corbyn could and would form a minority government without an election, as the Conservatives abstained on votes of confidence. The Conservatives would almost certainly be hopelessly split for that to have happened, would not want a general election and would need time to sort themselves out.

    I think it'd depend on circumstances. The Tories might get a couple of days at most to choose a new leader given current numbers.

    To take a clearer historical parallel, suppose Blair lost first the Iraq War vote and then, doubling down, a Confidence vote he tied to his Iraq policy, and that the FTPA had been in operation. In those circumstances, it's almost certain that the cabinet and PLP would have rapidly nominated Brown to form a new government and a Confidence vote would have been carried comfortably.
    With the benefit of hindsight I think you gave the Conservatives the best advice after the general election last year - they should have gone into opposition and sorted themselves out.
    A couple of extra seats for Labour and that might have been an option (though not one I imagine the Conservatives would have taken, they would have at least tested the confidence of the house) but as it stands why would the Conservatives offer confidence to a minority Labour government? Abstaining when your votes would defeat is tacit endorsement...
    Let him dandle, unable to do much in the way of positive action, until you're ready to replace him.
    More likely you let him dangle unable to do much in way of positive action decontaminating him and allowing him to go to the country 10 months later and win a majority at which point his hands become untied...

    Because how could the Conservatives refuse another election when they were unwilling to serve despite winning most seats in the prior one?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,184
    chrisoxon said:

    chrisoxon said:



    In practice, it's unthinkable that an old-school Conservative Prime Minister (and I would put Theresa May in this category) would put the Queen in such an invidious position.

    If the Conservatives were defeated on a vote of confidence (a Spartan If if ever I saw one), I expect Jeremy Corbyn could and would form a minority government without an election, as the Conservatives abstained on votes of confidence. The Conservatives would almost certainly be hopelessly split for that to have happened, would not want a general election and would need time to sort themselves out.

    I think it'd depend on circumstances. The Tories might get a couple of days at most to choose a new leader given current numbers.

    To take a clearer historical parallel, suppose Blair lost first the Iraq War vote and then, doubling down, a Confidence vote he tied to his Iraq policy, and that the FTPA had been in operation. In those circumstances, it's almost certain that the cabinet and PLP would have rapidly nominated Brown to form a new government and a Confidence vote would have been carried comfortably.
    With the benefit of hindsight I think you gave the Conservatives the best advice after the general election last year - they should have gone into opposition and sorted themselves out.
    A couple of extra seats for Labour and that might have been an option (though not one I imagine the Conservatives would have taken, they would have at least tested the confidence of the house) but as it stands why would the Conservatives offer confidence to a minority Labour government? Abstaining when your votes would defeat is tacit endorsement...
    Let him dandle, unable to do much in the way of positive action, until you're ready to replace him.
    More likely you let him dangle unable to do much in way of positive action decontaminating him and allowing him to go to the country 10 months later and win a majority at which point his hands become untied...

    Because how could the Conservatives refuse another election when they were unwilling to serve despite winning most seats in the prior one?
    You have a higher opinion of Jeremy Corbyn's administrative abilities than I do.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,050
    The amendment isn't inconsistent with a hard brexit, unless one considers Turkey somehow under the EU's reach.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,184
    Pulpstar said:

    The amendment isn't inconsistent with a hard brexit, unless one considers Turkey somehow under the EU's reach.

    Naughty naughty.
  • Completely OT while it is fresh in my mind.

    A fascinating 'Bottom Line' on Radio 4 last night with Evan Davis. Talking about share ownership of British companies. 54% of all shares in publicly listed UK companies are now owned by foreign investors - the US and China being the big investors these days.

    UK Pension funds now hold only 3% of publicly owned shares. This is a phenomenal drop over the last decade.

    UK Insurance companies hold 5% of publicly owned shares.

    Unit Trusts hold 10%.

    There has been a huge transformation in share ownership over the last couple of decades.

    Interesting - but what do we think the consequence is?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676

    HYUFD said:

    The focus here is on Tory rebels, but similar issues arise for the hardline Brexiteer Labour MPs. In general, sitting MPs are not at risk. However, if they voted to save the Government over Brexit then I think that they really would be deselected - the swing vote of centre-left members who are not especially keen on left-wing politics would support any challenger saying "we need a Labour MP who doesn't help the Tories". This isn't a threat (I'm not in a position to deselect anyone), just a fact. I suspect in reality that in a crunch they'd abstain.

    Of course equally Tory associations in Tory Leave seats, including Broxtowe, may start to lose patience with their MPs voting consistemtly with Labour on Brexit
    I know many Broxtowe Conservatives quite well. There is a minority who have never liked Anna, some quite vehemently, but the majority are pretty straightforward unideological Tories who like the fact that she's held the marginal seat. Deselection won't happen unless she actually resigns from the party.

    In general MPs on both sides in marginals are safer from deselection than MPs in safe seats, both because the troops have fought hand-to-hand alongside them in the front line, and because the seat is likely to be held by an insurgent, even if the evicted MP tries to stand as an independent.
    Yes up to a point. Soubry voting with Labour to bring down May and the government might be that point. Plus Broxtowe voted Leave of course
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,741

    Completely OT while it is fresh in my mind.

    A fascinating 'Bottom Line' on Radio 4 last night with Evan Davis. Talking about share ownership of British companies. 54% of all shares in publicly listed UK companies are now owned by foreign investors - the US and China being the big investors these days.

    UK Pension funds now hold only 3% of publicly owned shares. This is a phenomenal drop over the last decade.

    UK Insurance companies hold 5% of publicly owned shares.

    Unit Trusts hold 10%.

    There has been a huge transformation in share ownership over the last couple of decades.

    I did not catch the programme but those numbers are frightening. Although foreign investment is welcome, think of the profit and dividend outflows -- and don't wonder why our balance of payments is so heavily in the red.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,050

    Pulpstar said:

    The amendment isn't inconsistent with a hard brexit, unless one considers Turkey somehow under the EU's reach.

    Naughty naughty.
    Who would the big loser be from this amendment.

    Liam Fox :) I think I could live with that.
  • chrisoxonchrisoxon Posts: 204

    chrisoxon said:

    chrisoxon said:



    I think it'd depend on circumstances. The Tories might get a couple of days at most to choose a new leader given current numbers.

    To take a clearer historical parallel, suppose Blair lost first the Iraq War vote and then, doubling down, a Confidence vote he tied to his Iraq policy, and that the FTPA had been in operation. In those circumstances, it's almost certain that the cabinet and PLP would have rapidly nominated Brown to form a new government and a Confidence vote would have been carried comfortably.

    With the benefit of hindsight I think you gave the Conservatives the best advice after the general election last year - they should have gone into opposition and sorted themselves out.
    A couple of extra seats for Labour and that might have been an option (though not one I imagine the Conservatives would have taken, they would have at least tested the confidence of the house) but as it stands why would the Conservatives offer confidence to a minority Labour government? Abstaining when your votes would defeat is tacit endorsement...
    Let him dandle, unable to do much in the way of positive action, until you're ready to replace him.
    More likely you let him dangle unable to do much in way of positive action decontaminating him and allowing him to go to the country 10 months later and win a majority at which point his hands become untied...

    Because how could the Conservatives refuse another election when they were unwilling to serve despite winning most seats in the prior one?
    You have a higher opinion of Jeremy Corbyn's administrative abilities than I do.
    I have no confidence in his administrative abilities, but as you identified his hands would be tied by a lack of majority. He'd put forward populist policies and have them defeated in the house, expressing sorrow as the "nasty tories" blocked all of his giveaways. In October he then would have gone to the country post conference asking for the majority so that he can hand out jam for everyone.

    Letting Corbyn rule for a short period as a minority would be a campaign gift for him.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The amendment isn't inconsistent with a hard brexit, unless one considers Turkey somehow under the EU's reach.

    Naughty naughty.
    Who would the big loser be from this amendment.

    Liam Fox :) I think I could live with that.
    The UK. We would be unable to make our own deals which was the point of Brexit.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,184
    chrisoxon said:

    chrisoxon said:

    chrisoxon said:



    I think it'd depend on circumstances. The Tories might get a couple of days at most to choose a new leader given current numbers.

    To take a clearer historical parallel, suppose Blair lost first the Iraq War vote and then, doubling down, a Confidence vote he tied to his Iraq policy, and that the FTPA had been in operation. In those circumstances, it's almost certain that the cabinet and PLP would have rapidly nominated Brown to form a new government and a Confidence vote would have been carried comfortably.

    With the benefit of hindsight I think you gave the Conservatives the best advice after the general election last year - they should have gone into opposition and sorted themselves out.
    A couple of extra seats for Labour and that might have been an option (though not one I imagine the Conservatives would have taken, they would have at least tested the confidence of the house) but as it stands why would the Conservatives offer confidence to a minority Labour government? Abstaining when your votes would defeat is tacit endorsement...
    Let him dandle, unable to do much in the way of positive action, until you're ready to replace him.
    More likely you let him dangle unable to do much in way of positive action decontaminating him and allowing him to go to the country 10 months later and win a majority at which point his hands become untied...

    Because how could the Conservatives refuse another election when they were unwilling to serve despite winning most seats in the prior one?
    You have a higher opinion of Jeremy Corbyn's administrative abilities than I do.
    I have no confidence in his administrative abilities, but as you identified his hands would be tied by a lack of majority. He'd put forward populist policies and have them defeated in the house, expressing sorrow as the "nasty tories" blocked all of his giveaways. In October he then would have gone to the country post conference asking for the majority so that he can hand out jam for everyone.

    Letting Corbyn rule for a short period as a minority would be a campaign gift for him.
    It's possible. It's equally possible that he would make a series of avoidable pratfalls.
  • tysontyson Posts: 4,350

    Completely OT while it is fresh in my mind.

    A fascinating 'Bottom Line' on Radio 4 last night with Evan Davis. Talking about share ownership of British companies. 54% of all shares in publicly listed UK companies are now owned by foreign investors - the US and China being the big investors these days.

    UK Pension funds now hold only 3% of publicly owned shares. This is a phenomenal drop over the last decade.

    UK Insurance companies hold 5% of publicly owned shares.

    Unit Trusts hold 10%.

    There has been a huge transformation in share ownership over the last couple of decades.

    Interesting - but what do we think the consequence is?
    One thing is that whatever kind of Brexit deal is achieved won’t impact on UK shares. In fact investors should hope for a the hardest of cliff edge Brexits so UK companies remain comparatively cheap.

  • Completely OT while it is fresh in my mind.

    A fascinating 'Bottom Line' on Radio 4 last night with Evan Davis. Talking about share ownership of British companies. 54% of all shares in publicly listed UK companies are now owned by foreign investors - the US and China being the big investors these days.

    UK Pension funds now hold only 3% of publicly owned shares. This is a phenomenal drop over the last decade.

    UK Insurance companies hold 5% of publicly owned shares.

    Unit Trusts hold 10%.

    There has been a huge transformation in share ownership over the last couple of decades.

    A consequence of Osbrowne economics.

    The UK sold its assets to fund its excessive current consumption.
  • Imteresting from Mark Stone of Sky.

    The Belgium PM inviting PM's from 12 other EU countries to a private meeting last night and Junckers and Tusk were specifically not invited to attend
  • Completely OT while it is fresh in my mind.

    A fascinating 'Bottom Line' on Radio 4 last night with Evan Davis. Talking about share ownership of British companies. 54% of all shares in publicly listed UK companies are now owned by foreign investors - the US and China being the big investors these days.

    UK Pension funds now hold only 3% of publicly owned shares. This is a phenomenal drop over the last decade.

    UK Insurance companies hold 5% of publicly owned shares.

    Unit Trusts hold 10%.

    There has been a huge transformation in share ownership over the last couple of decades.

    I did not catch the programme but those numbers are frightening. Although foreign investment is welcome, think of the profit and dividend outflows -- and don't wonder why our balance of payments is so heavily in the red.
    The other interesting point was the number of medium sized companies that, whilst publicly listed, are turning their backs on secondary share offers to raise capital. Whilst this used to be a common way of raising money, apparently companies are now far more likely to go to private investment houses and banks to get the capital they need for projects rather than the markets.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,741

    Completely OT while it is fresh in my mind.

    A fascinating 'Bottom Line' on Radio 4 last night with Evan Davis. Talking about share ownership of British companies. 54% of all shares in publicly listed UK companies are now owned by foreign investors - the US and China being the big investors these days.

    UK Pension funds now hold only 3% of publicly owned shares. This is a phenomenal drop over the last decade.

    UK Insurance companies hold 5% of publicly owned shares.

    Unit Trusts hold 10%.

    There has been a huge transformation in share ownership over the last couple of decades.

    A consequence of Osbrowne economics.

    The UK sold its assets to fund its excessive current consumption.
    A consequence of Thatcherite economics: one of her magic money trees was flogging off nationalised industries to Sid and a bunch of foreigners -- often state-owned foreigners.
This discussion has been closed.