I learn from the BBC that Johnson, Raab and David Davies have been hinted as Brexiteer candidates. Apparently they're going to have some preliminary hustings to pick a single candidate from Slytherin.
I have read that the bloody awful Esther McVey has been touted as a candidate.
Is there a better Conservative MP to be PM? Anyone you think would do a better job?
genuine question
Does it have to be an MP that is PM, or just the "leader of the party"
(with a flippant point behind it)
"when does Ruth Davidson come back from Maternity Leave" ?
I learn from the BBC that Johnson, Raab and David Davies have been hinted as Brexiteer candidates. Apparently they're going to have some preliminary hustings to pick a single candidate from Slytherin.
And McVey.
That assumes the ERG could agree on a single candidate or that, having got a sniff of potential power, the candidates agree to it. (Both of which strike me as highly unlikely).
European Research Group henchman Steve Baker MP has declared that the four Eurosceptics who have quit the cabinet – Boris Johnson, David Davis, Dominic Raab and Esther McVey – should decide which one of them will run as a Brexit PM. What a banquet of choice for the British people that would be. According to YouGov polling this week, Boris Johnson’s approval ratings are currently minus 35, David Davis’s are minus 19, Dominic Raab’s are minus 21, and Esther McVey’s were not polled, presumably on the basis that the recently departed high priestess of universal credit would break their measuring device.
That's why I wondered if it might be better for her to lose it.
But it would lead to a 2 month leadership contest with the winner being picked by a bunch of hardcore hangers, floggers and no-dealers who want BoJo or Rees-Mogg as their king.
If that happens, it's likely to lead to a Tory split and an electoral wipe-out but they'd have their Brexit so they'd still consider it a win.
As I say I think that if she does lose, a no confidence vote might well follow and thus a General Election, which I think would be extenuating enough circumstances for the EU to extend the Brexit deadline a bit. But it doesn't sound like she's going to lose.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Calling a vote of no confidence in the government still looks a dicey route for Jeremy Corbyn. If hardline Brexiteers abstained or even voted with Labour, Lib Dems and the SNP, that would be seen as an act of total disloyalty by the Tory rank and file. And the DUP won't want to risk their bargaining position for nothing.
According to the Guardian's live feed some of the ERG are actually contemplating joining a no-confidence vote. One wonders whether that is not a sure-fire route to deselection.
They are probably dreaming of a bright and shiny New Conservative Party of which they are the Mount Rushmoreian leaders emerging in the brave new post-hard-Brexit world, built on the ruins of the pre-Brexit EU-enslaved Old Conservative Party.
I don't think the headbangers have the guts to do that. It suits their purpose to remain within the official Conservative Party and have it struggle on in government as long as possible.
Any such party would probably appear for the next general election, which will happen sooner rather than later. After watching Trump win in America, are we really sure that a libertarian group wouldn't win enough votes to be able to form a Government? Particularly with the current state of the Opposition.
We don't have an electorate that will vote for the Green Party or any other party with more egalitarian views.
Although it doesn't have the same aspirations as the likes of UKIP or the Brexiteers, La République en Marche demonstrates that today in Europe it is possible to go from nowhere to an absolute parliamentary majority (plus, in France's case, a presidency) in the space of 18 months.
A new party has the appeal of being a means of rejecting the political establishment (even if some of the actual players are the same) and being a locus for a wide range of voter aspirations before having to actually demonstrate its policy objectives.
Current events in France suggest this approach may be quite time-limited, but I don't expect that to bother starry-eyed party founders.
I'm sorry if this sounds like hyperbole, but many of the things going on in European political centres have the noxious whiff of the Weimar Republic.
I don't know what the ERG is planning, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were to seek to make hay in the crisis immediately after a no deal hard brexit.
And if the opposition - everyone who abhors the idea of a manufactured crisis like this - fails to find ways to unite against it, then there is dangerous space in the political sphere for more extreme voices to make headway.
So Treeza survived the leadership vote. As the result was 200 for her and 117 against it is not exactly a comfortable majory and could dtill cause her real trouble. So we are back to where we were. Will Labour call a no confidence in the government vote? Will the EU give some more concessions? Will Mrs May still be in power tomorrow? Who knows?
Although it doesn't have the same aspirations as the likes of UKIP or the Brexiteers, La République en Marche demonstrates that today in Europe it is possible to go from nowhere to an absolute parliamentary majority (plus, in France's case, a presidency) in the space of 18 months.
A new party has the appeal of being a means of rejecting the political establishment (even if some of the actual players are the same) and being a locus for a wide range of voter aspirations before having to actually demonstrate its policy objectives.
Current events in France suggest this approach may be quite time-limited, but I don't expect that to bother starry-eyed party founders.
For the time it worked, Macron pulled it off by being young and charismatic. I have no idea who in the UK could do anything similar.
how can she "Deliver the Brexit that the people voted for" when the ballot paper said nothing about what people wanted "leave" to mean ?
Is it possible to make Brexit apply to only the people who voted for it ?
It's one of the things that irritates me the most, this continual interpretation of her own views as representing "the will of the people". There is no way she can know that, in fact, you can reverse it - "this is what I think, therefore it's what people voted for". A bit like post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's dishonest, but I suppose it's common currency today in politics.
Well, she survived. Rees-Mogg trying to make it look like she sort of lost really on the tellybox.
We're fucked anyway.
Yep. On this I think he might actually be right. Other than those in government, much of the rest of the party voted against her.
Only a handful of those have to abstain in a no confidence vote, and her government is toast.
On that basis there really is a chance of a split in Tory ranks. It's not unusual for there to be rebels but when half of those who are not in the government are "rebelling", including some prominent former ministers, those on the front bench will find it uncomfortable and will be very reluctant to put anything to the vote.
My guess is that Treeza will barge on regardless, devoid though she is of a helmsman, let alone a navigating officer, as she has staked so much on "the deal", and the government Chief Whip and his lackeys will be digging all the dirt they possibly can to get people to STFU or into the right lobbies, if there must be divisions.
It's one of the things that irritates me the most, this continual interpretation of her own views as representing "the will of the people".
I think this is unfair.
However badly designed and prepared for, the referendum was accepted, by all parties, as expressing "the will of the people". Nobody thinks that means "100% of the people". A referendum victory was deemed to be the best approximation (I know, I know) of the will of the people.
On this basis "the people" voted to leave the EU; whatever they may have hoped for, I think it's reasonable to assume they didn't think they'd be voting for a cliff-edge Brexit. It is therefore reasonable to work towards some kind of a deal to deliver that. I think the Tory party as a whole is as responsible as its leader for spending two years bickering instead of working towards that.
I don't get the impression that May is working towards her own preferences over and above what she thinks is acceptable to both the EU27 and what should be acceptable to the "people" if the outcome of the referendum is taken as valid.
My guess is that Treeza will barge on regardless, devoid though she is of a helmsman, let alone a navigating officer, as she has staked so much on "the deal"
What do you think her alternative options would be? I don't think the EU27 is bluffing when it says there's very little room for manouevre.
I don't blame Corbyn for not pressing a vote of confidence at the moment as he would certainly lose it; better to leave it until he's tolerably certain he can win it - which would be the case if Treeza by some miracle gets the Commons to support her deal, compete with backstop. That's the moment when the DUP will drop her, regardless of the consequences to themselves.
Actually I think Corbyn's played his hand brilliantly so far, though I know that's not a common view. One should, after all, never interrupt one's enemy when he's making a mistake, and the Tories have done nothing but blunder about for months. The odds on Treeza getting a parliamentary majority for her deal still seem close to zero, and last night's vote really only shows how entrenched many of her colleagues are against approving it.
So either she gets her (unlikely) win and then loses a vote of confidence, or she fails to get approval for her deal, at which point I suspect she's going to appeal to a second public vote to support her. Even she knows that No Deal would be a disaster, and this would he her way out of it.
To add to the confusion about the Brexit vote. I have spoken to some people who didn’t read the question properly and didn’t see the question said the vote was advisory. Yes the government said they would go with the result of the vote, but these people are surprised when you tell them the wording. Does your Vote count if you don’t actually know what hat the question is?
It's one of the things that irritates me the most, this continual interpretation of her own views as representing "the will of the people".
I think this is unfair.
However badly designed and prepared for, the referendum was accepted, by all parties, as expressing "the will of the people". Nobody thinks that means "100% of the people". A referendum victory was deemed to be the best approximation (I know, I know) of the will of the people.
On this basis "the people" voted to leave the EU; whatever they may have hoped for, I think it's reasonable to assume they didn't think they'd be voting for a cliff-edge Brexit. It is therefore reasonable to work towards some kind of a deal to deliver that. I think the Tory party as a whole is as responsible as its leader for spending two years bickering instead of working towards that.
I don't get the impression that May is working towards her own preferences over and above what she thinks is acceptable to both the EU27 and what should be acceptable to the "people" if the outcome of the referendum is taken as valid.
Nobody knows if a majority wanted to be Norway, to be Canada or something approaching the draft, because nobody talked about these options.
I suspect Mrs May believes that the most important thing people were voting for were to stop Europeans coming to work in the UK. I doubt two brexit-supporting people would say the same thing on all the other issues
This is all true, but the fact remains that a majority voted to "Leave the European Union", and that is what she is trying her best to achieve in an orderly manner.
Cue hollow laughter, I know, but at this point I genuinely believe that is her priority. The fact that she's made it clear she wouldn't lead the party into another election reinforces my conviction that she believes her Parliamentary career is over at this point, so I don't think staying on has much self-interest involved apart from getting the job done if she possibly can.
I don't blame Corbyn for not pressing a vote of confidence at the moment as he would certainly lose it; better to leave it until he's tolerably certain he can win it - which would be the case if Treeza by some miracle gets the Commons to support her deal, compete with backstop. That's the moment when the DUP will drop her, regardless of the consequences to themselves.
Actually I think Corbyn's played his hand brilliantly so far, though I know that's not a common view. One should, after all, never interrupt one's enemy when he's making a mistake, and the Tories have done nothing but blunder about for months. The odds on Treeza getting a parliamentary majority for her deal still seem close to zero, and last night's vote really only shows how entrenched many of her colleagues are against approving it.
So either she gets her (unlikely) win and then loses a vote of confidence, or she fails to get approval for her deal, at which point I suspect she's going to appeal to a second public vote to support her. Even she knows that No Deal would be a disaster, and this would he her way out of it.
Yes, I think he is right to be wary of a vote of no confidence. For one thing, if it succeeded, Labour could be very unpopular, if there's an election. As the lady in Bristol said, not another one. Then again, he has to be seen to be doing something, and there are plenty of people standing at the back, shouting forwards.
This is all true, but the fact remains that a majority voted to "Leave the European Union", and that is what she is trying her best to achieve in an orderly manner.
Cue hollow laughter, I know, but at this point I genuinely believe that is her priority. The fact that she's made it clear she wouldn't lead the party into another election reinforces my conviction that she believes her Parliamentary career is over at this point, so I don't think staying on has much self-interest involved apart from getting the job done if she possibly can.
Well, the hangman does his best. Her best involves xenophobia and contempt for parliament. Whatever turns you on.
Comments
Though, those who take to the streets to oppose Brexit stop off at Waitrose on the way to buy some sandwiches for their lunch.
I have read that the bloody awful Esther McVey has been touted as a candidate.
Does it have to be an MP that is PM, or just the "leader of the party"
(with a flippant point behind it)
"when does Ruth Davidson come back from Maternity Leave" ?
It'd be fun to see someone try..
And McVey.
That assumes the ERG could agree on a single candidate or that, having got a sniff of potential power, the candidates agree to it. (Both of which strike me as highly unlikely).
In the words of Marina Hyde in The Guardian:
The whole article is well worth a read.
But it would lead to a 2 month leadership contest with the winner being picked by a bunch of hardcore hangers, floggers and no-dealers who want BoJo or Rees-Mogg as their king.
If that happens, it's likely to lead to a Tory split and an electoral wipe-out but they'd have their Brexit so they'd still consider it a win.
(Except the Greens, as I happen to be a paid-up member......)
Mind you, I do feel a little sorry for Treeza. After all, most of us voted for her to be our Prime Minister and Glorious Leader, didn't we?
O.
Then there will be a no confidence vote that she will win. Then.. err..
TO THE BARRICADES! AND THE GUILLOTINE!!
O.
Sorry, this is England.
A nice cuppa Tea, then.....
Or death.
We're fucked anyway.
Yep. On this I think he might actually be right. Other than those in government, much of the rest of the party voted against her.
Only a handful of those have to abstain in a no confidence vote, and her government is toast.
[mixed up my mountains]
I think at very least they want to ensure a hard Brexit is unavoidable before pulling the pin.
We don't have an electorate that will vote for the Green Party or any other party with more egalitarian views.
A new party has the appeal of being a means of rejecting the political establishment (even if some of the actual players are the same) and being a locus for a wide range of voter aspirations before having to actually demonstrate its policy objectives.
Current events in France suggest this approach may be quite time-limited, but I don't expect that to bother starry-eyed party founders.
I don't know what the ERG is planning, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were to seek to make hay in the crisis immediately after a no deal hard brexit.
And if the opposition - everyone who abhors the idea of a manufactured crisis like this - fails to find ways to unite against it, then there is dangerous space in the political sphere for more extreme voices to make headway.
Is it possible to make Brexit apply to only the people who voted for it ?
For the time it worked, Macron pulled it off by being young and charismatic. I have no idea who in the UK could do anything similar.
It's one of the things that irritates me the most, this continual interpretation of her own views as representing "the will of the people". There is no way she can know that, in fact, you can reverse it - "this is what I think, therefore it's what people voted for". A bit like post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's dishonest, but I suppose it's common currency today in politics.
Of course they didn't at all.
On that basis there really is a chance of a split in Tory ranks. It's not unusual for there to be rebels but when half of those who are not in the government are "rebelling", including some prominent former ministers, those on the front bench will find it uncomfortable and will be very reluctant to put anything to the vote.
My guess is that Treeza will barge on regardless, devoid though she is of a helmsman, let alone a navigating officer, as she has staked so much on "the deal", and the government Chief Whip and his lackeys will be digging all the dirt they possibly can to get people to STFU or into the right lobbies, if there must be divisions.
I think this is unfair.
However badly designed and prepared for, the referendum was accepted, by all parties, as expressing "the will of the people". Nobody thinks that means "100% of the people". A referendum victory was deemed to be the best approximation (I know, I know) of the will of the people.
On this basis "the people" voted to leave the EU; whatever they may have hoped for, I think it's reasonable to assume they didn't think they'd be voting for a cliff-edge Brexit. It is therefore reasonable to work towards some kind of a deal to deliver that. I think the Tory party as a whole is as responsible as its leader for spending two years bickering instead of working towards that.
I don't get the impression that May is working towards her own preferences over and above what she thinks is acceptable to both the EU27 and what should be acceptable to the "people" if the outcome of the referendum is taken as valid.
What do you think her alternative options would be? I don't think the EU27 is bluffing when it says there's very little room for manouevre.
Actually I think Corbyn's played his hand brilliantly so far, though I know that's not a common view. One should, after all, never interrupt one's enemy when he's making a mistake, and the Tories have done nothing but blunder about for months. The odds on Treeza getting a parliamentary majority for her deal still seem close to zero, and last night's vote really only shows how entrenched many of her colleagues are against approving it.
So either she gets her (unlikely) win and then loses a vote of confidence, or she fails to get approval for her deal, at which point I suspect she's going to appeal to a second public vote to support her. Even she knows that No Deal would be a disaster, and this would he her way out of it.
Nobody knows if a majority wanted to be Norway, to be Canada or something approaching the draft, because nobody talked about these options.
I suspect Mrs May believes that the most important thing people were voting for were to stop Europeans coming to work in the UK. I doubt two brexit-supporting people would say the same thing on all the other issues
Cue hollow laughter, I know, but at this point I genuinely believe that is her priority. The fact that she's made it clear she wouldn't lead the party into another election reinforces my conviction that she believes her Parliamentary career is over at this point, so I don't think staying on has much self-interest involved apart from getting the job done if she possibly can.
Yes, I think he is right to be wary of a vote of no confidence. For one thing, if it succeeded, Labour could be very unpopular, if there's an election. As the lady in Bristol said, not another one. Then again, he has to be seen to be doing something, and there are plenty of people standing at the back, shouting forwards.
Well, the hangman does his best. Her best involves xenophobia and contempt for parliament. Whatever turns you on.
Is that colloquially "You're a long time dying"?