David Cameron may well have put his finger on it when he called Cummings a "career psychopath".
One of the lines that may shed most light on Mr Cummings's view of his role in the world may be the memorable "Accuracy is for snake-oil pussies". (Source.)
Both he and Arron Banks have clearly got it coming to them and they have been saying so for some time by their behaviour. The same is true of Donald Trump even if for the moment the two British traitors are further along the path than he is.
For OGH’s sake I would be wary of calling people in public life “traitors”
Absolute twaddle! Even were he not one of Putin's puppets - which now seems extremely unlikely - the damage Banks knowingly helped inflict upon this country would be immense. That's treason in anyone's book. Those who campaigned to rescind Britain's membership of the European Union - and so diminish her influence and impoverish her citizenship - are traitors one and all!
Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
The Tory Leavers are now toxic nationally. By keeping them on some kind of leash, Theresa is at least getting a bit of respect. Were she to go and a Leaver take over, then the country's disgust and fury would know no limits. The Tory Leavers make Corbyn look palatable.
You say the Tory leavers are toxic. They are certainly toxic to the die hard remainers, but to most voters out there-I dont think so. They are simply advocating the implementation of the 2016 referendum -that we leave the EU in reality and not just in name.
Certain leavers like Johnson and Mogg might be toxic for other reasons but not because of Brexit. If someone like Dominic Raab took over for example, he would be perceived very differently.
Whatever happens, the Fixed Term Parliament Act still means no election before 2022, and it is impossible for Corbyn to form a government without an election. The numbers just dont stack up.
If May were overthrown and replaced by someone more vigorous in pursuing what people voted for in 2016, this would not make a Corbyn premiership more likely at all. The FYP act would mean that there would be no general election before 2022, Tory MPs would certainly not precipitate one in a vote of confidence nor would the DUP do so, and Corbyn simply does not have the numbers in the Commons to become PM without an election.
How does replacing May make a Corbyn premiership more likely? It is nonsense to argue that it does.
Indeed!
There are only two ways that Corbyn becomes PM from a change in Tory leader.
1: New leader gets boost in polls, calls early election, does as badly as May in campaign, loses election.
2: A dozen Tory MPs defect to a third party and vote No Confidence precipitating an early election.
Whatever happens, the Fixed Term Parliament Act still means no election before 2022
That's never something you can say when you've got a minority government, even less so when it's a minority government presiding over an essential negotiation that's turned into a total goat rodeo.
TSE header - You have concluded ‘No Theresa is better than a bad Theresa’, but I doubt the Tory party has. No matter what Mrs May's shortcomings might be this is no time to precipitate events which might propel a man whose shortcomings are his best points into Downing Street. May is strong because she's weak.
Whatever happens, the Fixed Term Parliament Act still means no election before 2022
That's never something you can say when you've got a minority government, even less so when it's a minority government presiding over an essential negotiation that's turned into a total goat rodeo.
Yeah but its not a minority government in reality. Its a government of the Conservative and Unionist Party. The unionists or DUP are guaranteed to support the Tories in a vote of confidence to keep out Corbyn. And therefore the Tories have a majority in reality. And that majority will almost certainly last until 2022 -unless a new Tory PM at any time before then decides he or she wants an election.
What most certainly will not happen is that Corbyn will be PM without an election. Even with all the other parties -other than the DUP who will never support him -lined up behind him, he doesnt have the numbers in the Commons.
Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
It looks indulgent.
Given we are Brexiting very shortly, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to be directing all energy at getting as good a Brexit deal as possible. That is what the Tory party should be focussing on, as in fact that is what they will be judged on.
(I am not a Tory, so the Tory party can of course do what they wish. I think the main objection is that the optics look bad from the outside).
"as good a Brexit deal as possible".
Surely that is the reason for an insurrection, not to stop one. The problem being that even the Cabinet Brexit committee cannot agree what constitutes a "good deal"
There is no good deal (either for Remainers or Leavers).
The country is split pretty much 50:50.
With those numbers, we can’t stay in the EU and make it work for us. And we can’t leave and make it work for us.
May has a shitty hand, but the cards in the hand remain the same whoever is holding them, and whether they want to take us out or keep us in.
I agree. We are at a point where there are no good options, just a choice of bad ones.
Monty Hall has opened one door, showing a car. It doesn't matter whether we stick or swap, we are going home with a goat.
Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
It looks indulgent.
Given we are Brexiting very shortly, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to be directing all energy at getting as good a Brexit deal as possible. That is what the Tory party should be focussing on, as in fact that is what they will be judged on.
(I am not a Tory, so the Tory party can of course do what they wish. I think the main objection is that the optics look bad from the outside).
"as good a Brexit deal as possible".
Surely that is the reason for an insurrection, not to stop one. The problem being that even the Cabinet Brexit committee cannot agree what constitutes a "good deal"
There is no good deal (either for Remainers or Leavers).
The country is split pretty much 50:50.
With those numbers, we can’t stay in the EU and make it work for us. And we can’t leave and make it work for us.
May has a shitty hand, but the cards in the hand remain the same whoever is holding them, and whether they want to take us out or keep us in.
I agree. We are at a point where there are no good options, just a choice of bad ones.
Monty Hall has opened one door, showing a car. It doesn't matter whether we stick or swap, we are going home with a goat.
I agree.
Remainers have enough support to make Brexit almost unworkable. Leavers have enough support to make Bremain almost unworkable. Impasse.
We go to a holding position, and revisit everything in 5 years time. I think another referendum is inevitable in the medium term.
TSE header - You have concluded ‘No Theresa is better than a bad Theresa’, but I doubt the Tory party has. No matter what Mrs May's shortcomings might be this is no time to precipitate events which might propel a man whose shortcomings are his best points into Downing Street. May is strong because she's weak.
Davis is a plank.
No some of the Leavers have concluded this week that 'no Theresa is better than a bad Theresa'
I concluded that back in July 2016.
Although JohnO (and a few other people) have persuaded me that I should support Theresa, as the alternative will be much much worse.
David Cameron may well have put his finger on it when he called Cummings a "career psychopath".
One of the lines that may shed most light on Mr Cummings's view of his role in the world may be the memorable "Accuracy is for snake-oil pussies". (Source.)
Both he and Arron Banks have clearly got it coming to them and they have been saying so for some time by their behaviour. The same is true of Donald Trump even if for the moment the two British traitors are further along the path than he is.
For OGH’s sake I would be wary of calling people in public life “traitors”
Absolute twaddle! Even were he not one of Putin's puppets - which now seems extremely unlikely - the damage Banks knowingly helped inflict upon this country would be immense. That's treason in anyone's book. Those who campaigned to rescind Britain's membership of the European Union - and so diminish her influence and impoverish her citizenship - are traitors one and all!
TSE header - You have concluded ‘No Theresa is better than a bad Theresa’, but I doubt the Tory party has. No matter what Mrs May's shortcomings might be this is no time to precipitate events which might propel a man whose shortcomings are his best points into Downing Street. May is strong because she's weak.
Davis is a plank.
No some of the Leavers have concluded this week that 'no Theresa is better than a bad Theresa'
I concluded that back in July 2016.
Although JohnO (and a few other people) have persuaded me that I should support Theresa, as the alternative will be much much worse.
#IStandWithTheresa
Who? I think you're just playing wishful Tory politics.
We go to a holding position, and revisit everything in 5 years time. I think another referendum is inevitable in the medium term.
I think you're probably right.
On May and the gang, certainly she has shown herself as not being up to what was, admittedly, a very difficult task even before her decision to go for a GE ended up making it even harder in terms of parliamentary arithmetic. But Boris and co have sniped and whinged and threatened to quit practically since day one, so frankly seem more interested in personal advantage than anything else, or they'd have acted sooner - if it was about needing to be decisive or take other options with enough time to actually attempt them they would have to have acted sooner, by necessity.
If even the Cabinet plotters are this angry then the other rebels should bring down May even if they think that risks Corbyn coming to power - if they sincerely think it is so important then they should be prepared for that risk, not whinge and threaten about it for a year.
Somebody (I forget who) posted upthread that Cummings once said 'Accuracy is for snake-oil pussies' to Andrew Tyrie.
While I entirely believe he could have said it, the only source I can find is John Crace's sketch on his select committee appearance. Does anyone know if he actually said it or is this an urban legend?
It should be noted that Cummings was a fluent liar and hopeless incompetent at the DfES, where he sold out to the civil servants and then blamed their opposition after his own policies were so ineptly implemented they caused an (ongoing) fiasco.
So I can quite believe he said it but I would like a reliable source for it.
Firstly the Brexiteers do not have the numbers to topple May even if they trigger a No confidence vote. About 130 Tory MPs out of 318 voted to Leave the EU, short by 30 of the 160 they need to get a majority of Tory MPs.
Secondly Mrs May has handled Brexit as best she could and really there is no alternative to what she has done if we want to respect the Leave vote and get any sort of deal with the EU. 17 million voted Leave, more than have voted for anything in the UK since WW2, so clearly May had to trigger Article 50. Staying in the single market is clearly not an option, at least not for a decade, as it requires free movement which would disrespect the Leave vote. Staying in the Customs Union prevents the UK doing any free trade deals which Brexiteers would not accept. Paying an exit bill and having regulatory alignment was the only way to move past Phase 1 of the talks with the EU and onto FTA discussions and also to avoid a hard border in Ireland.
David Cameron may well have put his finger on it when he called Cummings a "career psychopath".
One of the lines that may shed most light on Mr Cummings's view of his role in the world may be the memorable "Accuracy is for snake-oil pussies". (Source.)
Both he and Arron Banks have clearly got it coming to them and they have been saying so for some time by their behaviour. The same is true of Donald Trump even if for the moment the two British traitors are further along the path than he is.
For OGH’s sake I would be wary of calling people in public life “traitors”
Absolute twaddle! Even were he not one of Putin's puppets - which now seems extremely unlikely - the damage Banks knowingly helped inflict upon this country would be immense. That's treason in anyone's book. Those who campaigned to rescind Britain's membership of the European Union - and so diminish her influence and impoverish her citizenship - are traitors one and all!
Yeah, that's fine as a joke, but speaking as someone who think they probably did make a mistake in the referendum, that kind of talk won't help anything in terms of either stopping Brexit or trying to get a least harmful Brexit as is possible. It only makes it easier for those pushing for as hard a Brexit as possible to dismiss anyone who wants to remain/rejoin, or even have a softer Brexit, as being unhinged. It's incredibly counter productive thinking, which bodes poorly for actions.
And yes, it was also always wrong when some leavers called remainers/rejoiners traitors.
Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
1) Mrs May is ousted
2) It can take 2-3 three months to choose her replacement
3) For 2-3 months the Brexit negotiations are on hold/in flux as the Tories select their new leader, where it is possible the EU or us say we're putting negotiations on hold as it might be a waste because the new PM has their own approach
4) Less time increases the chances of a no deal Brexit which will bad for the UK and the economy.
5) A no deal Brexit will do for the Tories what Black Wednesday did for the Tories in 1992
6) Corbyn becomes PM
That's one scenario
The other scenario is that the Tories tear themselves apart in the leadership election that they simply become ungovernable. Her Majesty invites Corbyn to be PM.
There are a few other scenarios to Corbyn becoming PM.
52% of voters voted Leave, even if 10% wanted EEA rather than EU only that leaves 47% of voters who would accept WTO terms.
Whatever happens, the Fixed Term Parliament Act still means no election before 2022
That's never something you can say when you've got a minority government, even less so when it's a minority government presiding over an essential negotiation that's turned into a total goat rodeo.
Yeah but its not a minority government in reality. Its a government of the Conservative and Unionist Party. The unionists or DUP are guaranteed to support the Tories in a vote of confidence to keep out Corbyn. And therefore the Tories have a majority in reality. And that majority will almost certainly last until 2022 -unless a new Tory PM at any time before then decides he or she wants an election.
What most certainly will not happen is that Corbyn will be PM without an election. Even with all the other parties -other than the DUP who will never support him -lined up behind him, he doesnt have the numbers in the Commons.
The DUP cannot be relied upon under all circumstances - the 'border' in the Irish sea, springs to mind, and that one is quite likely.
Somebody (I forget who) posted upthread that Cummings once said 'Accuracy is for snake-oil pussies' to Andrew Tyrie.
While I entirely believe he could have said it, the only source I can find is John Crace's sketch on his select committee appearance. Does anyone know if he actually said it or is this an urban legend?
It should be noted that Cummings was a fluent liar and hopeless incompetent at the DfES, where he sold out to the civil servants and then blamed their opposition after his own policies were so ineptly implemented they caused an (ongoing) fiasco.
So I can quite believe he said it but I would like a reliable source for it.
There's a 15 minute video, if he says it, it should be in here.
David Cameron may well have put his finger on it when he called Cummings a "career psychopath".
One of the lines that may shed most light on Mr Cummings's view of his role in the world may be the memorable "Accuracy is for snake-oil pussies". (Source.)
Both he and Arron Banks have clearly got it coming to them and they have been saying so for some time by their behaviour. The same is true of Donald Trump even if for the moment the two British traitors are further along the path than he is.
For OGH’s sake I would be wary of calling people in public life “traitors”
Absolute twaddle! Even were he not one of Putin's puppets - which now seems extremely unlikely - the damage Banks knowingly helped inflict upon this country would be immense. That's treason in anyone's book. Those who campaigned to rescind Britain's membership of the European Union - and so diminish her influence and impoverish her citizenship - are traitors one and all!
Yeah, that's fine as a joke, but speaking as someone who think they probably did make a mistake in the referendum, that kind of talk won't help anything in terms of either stopping Brexit or trying to get a least harmful Brexit as is possible. It only makes it easier for those pushing for as hard a Brexit as possible to dismiss anyone who wants to remain/rejoin, or even have a softer Brexit, as being unhinged. It's incredibly counter productive thinking, which bodes poorly for actions.
And yes, it was also always wrong when some leavers called remainers/rejoiners traitors.
I think the traitor insult needs to be held back and deployed when accurate. The video released the other day of A C Grayling and the MEP actively encouraging EU representatives to punish us to teach us a lesson most certainly deserves the label.
Or are you going to tell me that it doesn't matter who wins an election, the Sovereign chooses the PM and the Commons supports them?
Some precedents last longer than others, while new ones emerge and old ones fall. Thus knowing them can be very important, but cannot always be taken as certainties in specific scenarios. It surely depends on what the precedent says, what the situation now is, if there are workable examples in other places against the precedent which could be used to justify a 'development' in our constitution, etc etc.
The very strength of our system would seem to be that where there is a will there is a way, within reason.
Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
It looks indulgent.
Given we are Brexiting very shortly, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to be directing all energy at getting as good a Brexit deal as possible. That is what the Tory party should be focussing on, as in fact that is what they will be judged on.
(I am not a Tory, so the Tory party can of course do what they wish. I think the main objection is that the optics look bad from the outside).
"as good a Brexit deal as possible".
Surely that is the reason for an insurrection, not to stop one. The problem being that even the Cabinet Brexit committee cannot agree what constitutes a "good deal"
There is no good deal (either for Remainers or Leavers).
The country is split pretty much 50:50.
With those numbers, we can’t stay in the EU and make it work for us. And we can’t leave and make it work for us.
May has a shitty hand, but the cards in the hand remain the same whoever is holding them, and whether they want to take us out or keep us in.
I agree. We are at a point where there are no good options, just a choice of bad ones.
Monty Hall has opened one door, showing a car. It doesn't matter whether we stick or swap, we are going home with a goat.
A gont rather (government of nae talent).
Just remembered that the appointment of Digby Jones by Brown marked the initiation of the GOAT term. What an effing joke that's turned out to be.
I've just skimmed Dominic Cummings's "essay" (book, more like), Some Thoughts on Education and Political Priorities. There is no doubting that he's bright (thanks to a couple of years spent reading while living in a "bunker" on his dad's farm (source), but he's all over the place intellectually and he's possibly internally still trying to show off to Oxford tutor Robin Lane Fox (who has a number of family connections that will be well known to students of the byways of the English far right). David Cameron may well have put his finger on it when he called Cummings a "career psychopath". (...)
Do say. What connections to the far right are you referring to?
I am only talking about Robin Lane Fox's family members' connections. He himself may be in the Geoffrey de Sainte Croix school of classical studies for all I know. I had in mind Augustus Lane Fox the archaeologist who adopted the surname Pitt Rivers and founded the museum in Oxford, who was strongly influenced in his view of social evolution by Herbert Spencer of "it is best they should die" fame; and George Pitt-Rivers the pro-eugenics admirer of Hitler who was interned under Regulation 18B during WW2.
I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.
I reckon she'd need a few more, enough to keep her opponents out of treble figures. "More than 100 Conservative MPs expressed no confidence in Mrs May's leadership" would finish her.
Talk me through the mechanism for finishing her, given she is then immune from challenge for the party leadership for a year.
She looks weak. She gets told by senior ministers as well as Graham Brady and Julian Smith: "You've got to go. We want a leader who enjoys better and more support in the PCP. A hundred of us have no confidence in you and there's no way back." She resigns. There's no formal mechanism but if she holds on to the doorframe then threats of cabinet resignations should be sufficient.
"I have no confidence in the PM's leadership" is a stronger statement than "I'd prefer John Redwood to be the leader".
Not quite. The Baldwin precedent of 1929 (which incredibly, O'Donnell was apparently
So I'm not quite sure why you're disagreeing with me (unless it's because you enjoy our arguments)!
But Baldwin was not obliged to resign in 1929 - he chose to do so. Going back further to the December 1910 Parliament, the Liberals and Conservatives effectively had the same number of seats. By 1912 by election reverses had made the Tories the largest party, but it was hardly realistic to expect the Labour Party and Irish Nationalist MPs to switch their support from Asquith to Balfour or Bonar Law!
Baldwin stated that in the age of mass democracy, it was inappropriate for a party that had come second to hold on to power. He did not see himself as having a choice in the matter. But then, unlike Brown, he was honourable and an astute politician, even if their domestic record of wasted opportunity and complacency seems closely comparable. That set a precedent although it has seldom been needed.
In the case of the Liberals, since the Irish Nationalists had supported them in pretty much every vote anyway the dynamic was rather different - moreover both times they were (just) the largest party.
The really strange one of course was Macdonald, who led a party of 13 MPs after 1931. But then Lloyd George was in a similar situation, and both times it was irrelevant because they had campaigned on a joint platform with the election winners.
Baldwin was entitled to his opinion and to act on it, but there is no reason why in constitutional terms it should bind his successors. Moreover, Baldwin and the Tories did outpoll Macdonald's Labour Party at the 1929 election despite ending up with fewer seats.
Our entire constitution is based on precedents.
Or are you going to tell me that it doesn't matter who wins an election, the Sovereign chooses the PM and the Commons supports them?
A precedent has to have been followed over an extended period before a constitutional convention can be claimed to have been created.
It really, really doesn't. A single precedent is enough in law. For example, the precedent that the Sovereign could not appoint or dismiss administrations at will was established by the Bedchamber Crisis.
On that basis every PM can create his or her own precedent! Baldwin in 1929 was not following a precedent in 1929 so why should another PM feel obliged to follow him.? Heath - and Brown - have set more recent precedents by attempting to remain in office.
David Cameron may well have put his finger on it when he called Cummings a "career psychopath".
One of the lines that may shed most light on Mr Cummings's view of his role in the world may be the memorable "Accuracy is for snake-oil pussies". (Source.)
Both he and Arron Banks have clearly got it coming to them and they have been saying so for some time by their behaviour. The same is true of Donald Trump even if for the moment the two British traitors are further along the path than he is.
For OGH’s sake I would be wary of calling people in public life “traitors”
Absolute twaddle! Even were he not one of Putin's puppets - which now seems extremely unlikely - the damage Banks knowingly helped inflict upon this country would be immense. That's treason in anyone's book. Those who campaigned to rescind Britain's membership of the European Union - and so diminish her influence and impoverish her citizenship - are traitors one and all!
Yeah, that's fine as a joke, but speaking as someone who think they probably did make a mistake in the referendum, that kind of talk won't help anything in terms of either stopping Brexit or trying to get a least harmful Brexit as is possible. It only makes it easier for those pushing for as hard a Brexit as possible to dismiss anyone who wants to remain/rejoin, or even have a softer Brexit, as being unhinged. It's incredibly counter productive thinking, which bodes poorly for actions.
And yes, it was also always wrong when some leavers called remainers/rejoiners traitors.
Nah. Tell it like it is. It's because the pragmatists and the realists were to soft and conciliatory to begin with that we're in in this God-awful mess. Anyway, I'm off for a stroll in the Berkshire sunshine. Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
1) Mrs May is ousted
2) It can take 2-3 three months to choose her replacement
3) For 2-3 months the Brexit negotiations are on hold/in flux as the Tories select their new leader, where it is possible the EU or us say we're putting negotiations on hold as it might be a waste because the new PM has their own approach
4) Less time increases the chances of a no deal Brexit which will bad for the UK and the economy.
5) A no deal Brexit will do for the Tories what Black Wednesday did for the Tories in 1992
6) Corbyn becomes PM
That's one scenario
The other scenario is that the Tories tear themselves apart in the leadership election that they simply become ungovernable. Her Majesty invites Corbyn to be PM.
There are a few other scenarios to Corbyn becoming PM.
52% of voters voted Leave, even if 10% wanted EEA rather than EU only that leaves 47% of voters who would accept WTO terms.
But it wouldnt take 2 to 3 months to choose her replacement. Can you think of a single example of a sitting PM taking 2 to 3 months to replace? I challenge you to come up with a single example. And an even bigger flaw is your assumption that Corbyn just "becomes" PM. He cannot do so without winning an election.
It's been said before, but this cannot go on. It is preposterous that a year on the Cabinet are still in near open rebellion and they clearly have no idea what they think they can get, or even want to ask for, let along deliver anything close to it.
I think nearly everyone who is sensible would have acknowledged things would be very difficult, but even those who thought it would be a disaster presumably thought it would be a disaster for other reasons, not because even among the Cabinet they are still at each other's throats after a year. It's very nearly a parody of incompetence and weakness.
Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
1) Mrs May is ousted
2) It can take 2-3 three months to choose her replacement
3) For 2-3 months the Brexit negotiations are on hold/in flux as the Tories select their new leader, where it is possible the EU or us say we're putting negotiations on hold as it might be a waste because the new PM has their own approach
4) Less time increases the chances of a no deal Brexit which will bad for the UK and the economy.
5) A no deal Brexit will do for the Tories what Black Wednesday did for the Tories in 1992
6) Corbyn becomes PM
That's one scenario
The other scenario is that the Tories tear themselves apart in the leadership election that they simply become ungovernable. Her Majesty invites Corbyn to be PM.
There are a few other scenarios to Corbyn becoming PM.
52% of voters voted Leave, even if 10% wanted EEA rather than EU only that leaves 47% of voters who would accept WTO terms.
But it wouldnt take 2 to 3 months to choose her replacement. Can you think of a single example of a sitting PM taking 2 to 3 months to replace? I challenge you to come up with a single example. And an even bigger flaw is your assumption that Corbyn just "becomes" PM. He cannot do so without winning an election.
Had Mother Superior Leadsom not pulled out, it would have taken over 2 months to choose Cameron's successor.
Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
1) Mrs May is ousted
2) It can take 2-3 three months to choose her replacement
3) For 2-3 months the Brexit negotiations are on hold/in flux as the Tories select their new leader, where it is possible the EU or us say we're putting negotiations on hold as it might be a waste because the new PM has their own approach
4) Less time increases the chances of a no deal Brexit which will bad for the UK and the economy.
5) A no deal Brexit will do for the Tories what Black Wednesday did for the Tories in 1992
6) Corbyn becomes PM
That's one scenario
The other scenario is that the Tories tear themselves apart in the leadership election that they simply become ungovernable. Her Majesty invites Corbyn to be PM.
There are a few other scenarios to Corbyn becoming PM.
52% of voters voted Leave, even if 10% wanted EEA rather than EU only that leaves 47% of voters who would accept WTO terms.
But it wouldnt take 2 to 3 months to choose her replacement. Can you think of a single example of a sitting PM taking 2 to 3 months to replace? I challenge you to come up with a single example. And an even bigger flaw is your assumption that Corbyn just "becomes" PM. He cannot do so without winning an election.
Had Mother Superior Leadsom not pulled out, it would have taken over 2 months to choose Cameron's successor.
And the stakes are even higher now - no way someone pulls out when it gets to the final two now.
Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
1) Mrs May is ousted
2) It can take 2-3 three months to choose her replacement
3) For 2-3 months the Brexit negotiations are on hold/in flux as the Tories select their new leader, where it is possible the EU or us say we're putting negotiations on hold as it might be a waste because the new PM has their own approach
4) Less time increases the chances of a no deal Brexit which will bad for the UK and the economy.
5) A no deal Brexit will do for the Tories what Black Wednesday did for the Tories in 1992
6) Corbyn becomes PM
That's one scenario
The other scenario is that the Tories tear themselves apart in the leadership election that they simply become ungovernable. Her Majesty invites Corbyn to be PM.
There are a few other scenarios to Corbyn becoming PM.
52% of voters voted Leave, even if 10% wanted EEA rather than EU only that leaves 47% of voters who would accept WTO terms.
But it wouldnt take 2 to 3 months to choose her replacement. Can you think of a single example of a sitting PM taking 2 to 3 months to replace? I challenge you to come up with a single example. And an even bigger flaw is your assumption that Corbyn just "becomes" PM. He cannot do so without winning an election.
Had Mother Superior Leadsom not pulled out, it would have taken over 2 months to choose Cameron's successor.
And the stakes are even higher now - no way someone pulls out when it gets to the final two now.
Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
1) Mrs May is ousted
2) It can take 2-3 three months to choose her replacement
3) For 2-3 months the Brexit negotiations are on hold/in flux as the Tories select their new leader, where it is possible the EU or us say we're putting negotiations on hold as it might be a waste because the new PM has their own approach
4) Less time increases the chances of a no deal Brexit which will bad for the UK and the economy.
5) A no deal Brexit will do for the Tories what Black Wednesday did for the Tories in 1992
6) Corbyn becomes PM
That's one scenario
The other scenario is that the Tories tear themselves apart in the leadership election that they simply become ungovernable. Her Majesty invites Corbyn to be PM.
There are a few other scenarios to Corbyn becoming PM.
52% of voters voted Leave, even if 10% wanted EEA rather than EU only that leaves 47% of voters who would accept WTO terms.
But it wouldnt take 2 to 3 months to choose her replacement. Can you think of a single example of a sitting PM taking 2 to 3 months to replace? I challenge you to come up with a single example. And an even bigger flaw is your assumption that Corbyn just "becomes" PM. He cannot do so without winning an election.
Had Mother Superior Leadsom not pulled out, it would have taken over 2 months to choose Cameron's successor.
But in reality Leadsom was forced to pull out by Tory MPs. She had no real choice. The Tory Party would simply not tolerate a protracted leadership election while Corbyn danced with glee. The Tory party is the most ruthless engine of self preservation in the western world.
Whatever happens, the Fixed Term Parliament Act still means no election before 2022
That's never something you can say when you've got a minority government, even less so when it's a minority government presiding over an essential negotiation that's turned into a total goat rodeo.
Yeah but its not a minority government in reality. Its a government of the Conservative and Unionist Party. The unionists or DUP are guaranteed to support the Tories in a vote of confidence to keep out Corbyn. And therefore the Tories have a majority in reality. And that majority will almost certainly last until 2022 -unless a new Tory PM at any time before then decides he or she wants an election.
What most certainly will not happen is that Corbyn will be PM without an election. Even with all the other parties -other than the DUP who will never support him -lined up behind him, he doesnt have the numbers in the Commons.
The DUP cannot be relied upon under all circumstances - the 'border' in the Irish sea, springs to mind, and that one is quite likely.
To be fair I know a number of Tories who would love a Corbyn minority government propped up by the LDs and SNP and Greens, add the DUP too and the Tories would still be easily the biggest party but have opposition all to themselves
Whatever happens, the Fixed Term Parliament Act still means no election before 2022
That's never something you can say when you've got a minority government, even less so when it's a minority government presiding over an essential negotiation that's turned into a total goat rodeo.
Yeah but its not a minority government in reality. Its a government of the Conservative and Unionist Party. The unionists or DUP are guaranteed to support the Tories in a vote of confidence to keep out Corbyn. And therefore the Tories have a majority in reality. And that majority will almost certainly last until 2022 -unless a new Tory PM at any time before then decides he or she wants an election.
What most certainly will not happen is that Corbyn will be PM without an election. Even with all the other parties -other than the DUP who will never support him -lined up behind him, he doesnt have the numbers in the Commons.
The DUP cannot be relied upon under all circumstances - the 'border' in the Irish sea, springs to mind, and that one is quite likely.
To be fair I know a number of Tories who would love a Corbyn minority government propped up by the LDs and SNP and Greens, add the DUP too and the Tories would still be easily the biggest party but have opposition all to themselves
Who says the LDs would prop up a Corbyn government?
Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
1) Mrs May is ousted
2) It can take 2-3 three months to choose her replacement
3) For 2-3 months the Brexit negotiations are on hold/in flux as the Tories select their new leader, where it is possible the EU or us say we're putting negotiations on hold as it might be a waste because the new PM has their own approach
4) Less time increases the chances of a no deal Brexit which will bad for the UK and the economy.
5) A no deal Brexit will do for the Tories what Black Wednesday did for the Tories in 1992
6) Corbyn becomes PM
That's one scenario
The other scenario is that the Tories tear themselves apart in the leadership election that they simply become ungovernable. Her Majesty invites Corbyn to be PM.
There are a few other scenarios to Corbyn becoming PM.
52% of voters voted Leave, even if 10% wanted EEA rather than EU only that leaves 47% of voters who would accept WTO terms.
But it wouldnt take 2 to 3 months to choose her replacement. Can you think of a single example of a sitting PM taking 2 to 3 months to replace? I challenge you to come up with a single example. And an even bigger flaw is your assumption that Corbyn just "becomes" PM. He cannot do so without winning an election.
Had Mother Superior Leadsom not pulled out, it would have taken over 2 months to choose Cameron's successor.
But in reality Leadsom was forced to pull out by Tory MPs. She had no real choice. The Tory Party would simply not tolerate a protracted leadership election while Corbyn danced with glee. The Tory party is the most ruthless engine of self preservation in the western world.
This is a battle for the soul of the party. If the final two are from the mad hatters 'tow the UK into the Mid Atlantic' crowd or the loony 'let's bend over for the EU and beg forgiveness' crowd* then neither can pull out, since there would need to be a resolution to the Tory split on the issue - it is an outsider's view, granted, but even that ruthless engine will stop functioning if the cogs and pistons break down, and while I can see the various wings accepting they have lost an election and staying true to the team (Labour's moderates being a case in point) without a contest to determine a winner they will just keep on fighting as they have been.
Pretty risible considering Trump's approach to international treaty commitments.
Navarro added that the joint G-7 communique, a statement of shared beliefs that usually accompanies the close of the meeting, was a "socialist document."...
Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
1) Mrs May is ousted
2) It can take 2-3 three months to choose her replacement
3) For 2-3 months the Brexit negotiations are on hold/in flux as the Tories select their new leader, where it is possible the EU or us say we're putting negotiations on hold as it might be a waste because the new PM has their own approach
4) Less time increases the chances of a no deal Brexit which will bad for the UK and the economy.
5) A no deal Brexit will do for the Tories what Black Wednesday did for the Tories in 1992
6) Corbyn becomes PM
That's one scenario
The other scenario is that the Tories tear themselves apart in the leadership election that they simply become ungovernable. Her Majesty invites Corbyn to be PM.
There are a few other scenarios to Corbyn becoming PM.
52% of voters voted Leave, even if 10% wanted EEA rather than EU only that leaves 47% of voters who would accept WTO terms.
Two weeks before the referendum a Yougov poll asked that very question of those intending to vote Leave.
42% said they would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing. That is just of Leave voters. Add in a significant number (I would suggest a good majority) of Remain voters and I would think you would have an overall majority in favour of EFTA/EEA at this point.
Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
1) Mrs May is ousted
2) It can take 2-3 three months to choose her replacement
3) For 2-3 months the Brexit negotiations are on hold/in flux as the Tories select their new leader, where it is possible the EU or us say we're putting negotiations on hold as it might be a waste because the new PM has their own approach
4) Less time increases the chances of a no deal Brexit which will bad for the UK and the economy.
5) A no deal Brexit will do for the Tories what Black Wednesday did for the Tories in 1992
6) Corbyn becomes PM
That's one scenario
The other scenario is that the Tories tear themselves apart in the leadership election that they simply become ungovernable. Her Majesty invites Corbyn to be PM.
There are a few other scenarios to Corbyn becoming PM.
52% of voters voted Leave, even if 10% wanted EEA rather than EU only that leaves 47% of voters who would accept WTO terms.
But it wouldnt take 2 to 3 months to choose her replacement. Can you think of a single example of a sitting PM taking 2 to 3 months to replace? I challenge you to come up with a single example. And an even bigger flaw is your assumption that Corbyn just "becomes" PM. He cannot do so without winning an election.
Had Mother Superior Leadsom not pulled out, it would have taken over 2 months to choose Cameron's successor.
And the stakes are even higher now - no way someone pulls out when it gets to the final two now.
Yeah but you don't know how it'll play out. If everyone starts blowing each other up again you might conceivably finish up with a very unexpected final two again... And in those circumstances one of them would probably come under pressure to drop out.
Alternatively you might finish up with a final two who are both Brexiteers - Let's say Boris and Gove are the final two - In those circumstances they'd probably make a PM/CotE pact with each other.
Whatever happens, the Fixed Term Parliament Act still means no election before 2022
That's never something you can say when you've got a minority government, even less so when it's a minority government presiding over an essential negotiation that's turned into a total goat rodeo.
Yeah but its not a minority government in reality. Its a government of the Conservative and Unionist Party. The unionists or DUP are guaranteed to support the Tories in a vote of confidence to keep out Corbyn. And therefore the Tories have a majority in reality. And that majority will almost certainly last until 2022 -unless a new Tory PM at any time before then decides he or she wants an election.
What most certainly will not happen is that Corbyn will be PM without an election. Even with all the other parties -other than the DUP who will never support him -lined up behind him, he doesnt have the numbers in the Commons.
The DUP cannot be relied upon under all circumstances - the 'border' in the Irish sea, springs to mind, and that one is quite likely.
To be fair I know a number of Tories who would love a Corbyn minority government propped up by the LDs and SNP and Greens, add the DUP too and the Tories would still be easily the biggest party but have opposition all to themselves
Who says the LDs would prop up a Corbyn government?
I don't think it can be guaranteed nor entirely ruled out. I'd see it as implausible, as while some LDs are actually fans of Corbyn, others very much are not, and more to the point it would not really be to the party's advantage I think, even on a loose arrangement. They would surely hope that a fractured Tory party would aid them in a fresh election.
Whatever happens, the Fixed Term Parliament Act still means no election before 2022
That's never something you can say when you've got a minority government, even less so when it's a minority government presiding over an essential negotiation that's turned into a total goat rodeo.
Yeah but its not a minority government in reality. Its a government of the Conservative and Unionist Party. The unionists or DUP are guaranteed to support the Tories in a vote of confidence to keep out Corbyn. And therefore the Tories have a majority in reality. And that majority will almost certainly last until 2022 -unless a new Tory PM at any time before then decides he or she wants an election.
What most certainly will not happen is that Corbyn will be PM without an election. Even with all the other parties -other than the DUP who will never support him -lined up behind him, he doesnt have the numbers in the Commons.
The DUP cannot be relied upon under all circumstances - the 'border' in the Irish sea, springs to mind, and that one is quite likely.
To be fair I know a number of Tories who would love a Corbyn minority government propped up by the LDs and SNP and Greens, add the DUP too and the Tories would still be easily the biggest party but have opposition all to themselves
Who says the LDs would prop up a Corbyn government?
If the SNP, Plaid and the Greens vote for Corbyn and Sinn Fein take their seats, Corbyn could become PM even if only half the LDs vote for him and the other half abstain along with the DUP
On that basis every PM can create his or her own precedent! Baldwin in 1929 was not following a precedent in 1929 so why should another PM feel obliged to follow him.? Heath - and Brown - have set more recent precedents by attempting to remain in office.
Heath was following another Baldwin precedent - that of 1923/4.
Brown, as the clear loser, could and should have resigned following the other precedent of 1929, and so should that utter berk O'Donnell, who according to fairly solid information communicated to Rawnsley had already blocked an official complaint into maltreatment of staff by Brown.
Whatever happens, the Fixed Term Parliament Act still means no election before 2022
That's never something you can say when you've got a minority government, even less so when it's a minority government presiding over an essential negotiation that's turned into a total goat rodeo.
Yeah but its not a minority government in reality. Its a government of the Conservative and Unionist Party. The unionists or DUP are guaranteed to support the Tories in a vote of confidence to keep out Corbyn. And therefore the Tories have a majority in reality. And that majority will almost certainly last until 2022 -unless a new Tory PM at any time before then decides he or she wants an election.
What most certainly will not happen is that Corbyn will be PM without an election. Even with all the other parties -other than the DUP who will never support him -lined up behind him, he doesnt have the numbers in the Commons.
The DUP cannot be relied upon under all circumstances - the 'border' in the Irish sea, springs to mind, and that one is quite likely.
To be fair I know a number of Tories who would love a Corbyn minority government propped up by the LDs and SNP and Greens, add the DUP too and the Tories would still be easily the biggest party but have opposition all to themselves
Who says the LDs would prop up a Corbyn government?
If the SNP, Plaid and the Greens vote for Corbyn and Sinn Fein take their seats, Corbyn could become PM even if only half the LDs vote for him and the other half abstain along with the DUP
But Sinn Fein wont take their seats. There's always in a flaw in the Corbyn will be PM scenario.
Thanks for the link, Mr Eagles, but it doesn't include the alleged remark. Most disappointing.
Incidentally may I make a suggestion having watched it? If people want to refer to a lying, twisting, shameless, incompetent, lazy, useless whoreson and cannot use a four letter c-word, should we use in future the expression 'a Cummings?'
Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
1) Mrs May is ousted
2) It can take 2-3 three months to choose her replacement
3) For 2-3 months the Brexit negotiations are on hold/in flux as the Tories select their new leader, where it is possible the EU or us say we're putting negotiations on hold as it might be a waste because the new PM has their own approach
4) Less time increases the chances of a no deal Brexit which will bad for the UK and the economy.
5) A no deal Brexit will do for the Tories what Black Wednesday did for the Tories in 1992
6) Corbyn becomes PM
That's one scenario
The other scenario is that the Tories tear themselves apart in the leadership election that they simply become ungovernable. Her Majesty invites Corbyn to be PM.
There are a few other scenarios to Corbyn becoming PM.
52% of voters voted Leave, even if 10% wanted EEA rather than EU only that leaves 47% of voters who would accept WTO terms.
But it wouldnt take 2 to 3 months to choose her replacement. Can you think of a single example of a sitting PM taking 2 to 3 months to replace? I challenge you to come up with a single example. And an even bigger flaw is your assumption that Corbyn just "becomes" PM. He cannot do so without winning an election.
Had Mother Superior Leadsom not pulled out, it would have taken over 2 months to choose Cameron's successor.
And the stakes are even higher now - no way someone pulls out when it gets to the final two now.
Yeah but you don't know how it'll play out. If everyone starts blowing each other up again you might conceivably finish up with a very unexpected final two again... And in those circumstances one of them would probably come under pressure to drop out.
Alternatively you might finish up with a final two who are both Brexiteers - Let's say Boris and Gove are the final two - In those circumstances they'd probably make a PM/CotE pact with each other.
Possibly - if the final two are indeed ideologically pretty close on the Brexit issue then perhaps a drawn out election could be avoided. But if the MPs are sufficiently divided to end up with candidates with very different visions, a contest is I would think essential for the party to resolve the issue beyond the parliamentary party, to see how many will truly jump and how many will be able to middle along despite disliking the new status quo.
Whatever happens, the Fixed Term Parliament Act still means no election before 2022
That's never something you can say when you've got a minority government, even less so when it's a minority government presiding over an essential negotiation that's turned into a total goat rodeo.
Yeah but its not a minority government in reality. Its a government of the Conservative and Unionist Party. The unionists or DUP are guaranteed to support the Tories in a vote of confidence to keep out Corbyn. And therefore the Tories have a majority in reality. And that majority will almost certainly last until 2022 -unless a new Tory PM at any time before then decides he or she wants an election.
What most certainly will not happen is that Corbyn will be PM without an election. Even with all the other parties -other than the DUP who will never support him -lined up behind him, he doesnt have the numbers in the Commons.
The DUP cannot be relied upon under all circumstances - the 'border' in the Irish sea, springs to mind, and that one is quite likely.
To be fair I know a number of Tories who would love a Corbyn minority government propped up by the LDs and SNP and Greens, add the DUP too and the Tories would still be easily the biggest party but have opposition all to themselves
Who says the LDs would prop up a Corbyn government?
If the SNP, Plaid and the Greens vote for Corbyn and Sinn Fein take their seats, Corbyn could become PM even if only half the LDs vote for him and the other half abstain along with the DUP
But Sinn Fein wont take their seats. There's always in a flaw in the Corbyn will be PM scenario.
SF have been consistent, why should they take their seats now?
Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
1) Mrs May is ousted
2) It can take 2-3 three months to choose her replacement
3) For 2-3 months the Brexit negotiations are on hold/in flux as the Tories select their new leader, where it is possible the EU or us say we're putting negotiations on hold as it might be a waste because the new PM has their own approach
4) Less time increases the chances of a no deal Brexit which will bad for the UK and the economy.
5) A no deal Brexit will do for the Tories what Black Wednesday did for the Tories in 1992
6) Corbyn becomes PM
That's one scenario
The other scenario is that the Tories tear themselves apart in the leadership election that they simply become ungovernable. Her Majesty invites Corbyn to be PM.
There are a few other scenarios to Corbyn becoming PM.
52% of voters voted Leave, even if 10% wanted EEA rather than EU only that leaves 47% of voters who would accept WTO terms.
Two weeks before the referendum a Yougov poll asked that very question of those intending to vote Leave.
42% said they would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing. That is just of Leave voters. Add in a significant number (I would suggest a good majority) of Remain voters and I would think you would have an overall majority in favour of EFTA/EEA at this point.
No, this week's Opinium has 34% prioritising ending free movement even if it means leaving the single market and 38% prioritising staying in the single market even if it means free movement, almost neck and neck.
Amongst Leave voters 59% prioritised ending free movement over staying in the single market, just 13% prioritised staying in the single market with 28% unsure.
Whatever happens, the Fixed Term Parliament Act still means no election before 2022
That's never something you can say when you've got a minority government, even less so when it's a minority government presiding over an essential negotiation that's turned into a total goat rodeo.
Yeah but its not a minority government in reality. Its a government of the Conservative and Unionist Party. The unionists or DUP are guaranteed to support the Tories in a vote of confidence to keep out Corbyn. And therefore the Tories have a majority in reality. And that majority will almost certainly last until 2022 -unless a new Tory PM at any time before then decides he or she wants an election.
What most certainly will not happen is that Corbyn will be PM without an election. Even with all the other parties -other than the DUP who will never support him -lined up behind him, he doesnt have the numbers in the Commons.
The DUP cannot be relied upon under all circumstances - the 'border' in the Irish sea, springs to mind, and that one is quite likely.
To be fair I know a number of Tories who would love a Corbyn minority government propped up by the LDs and SNP and Greens, add the DUP too and the Tories would still be easily the biggest party but have opposition all to themselves
It's easy to move your matchsticks around and create potential governing blocs, but each party has its priorities and that looks very unlikely.
Whatever happens, the Fixed Term Parliament Act still means no election before 2022
That's never something you can say when you've got a minority government, even less so when it's a minority government presiding over an essential negotiation that's turned into a total goat rodeo.
Yeah but its not a minority government in reality. Its a government of the Conservative and Unionist Party. The unionists or DUP are guaranteed to support the Tories in a vote of confidence to keep out Corbyn. And therefore the Tories have a majority in reality. And that majority will almost certainly last until 2022 -unless a new Tory PM at any time before then decides he or she wants an election.
What most certainly will not happen is that Corbyn will be PM without an election. Even with all the other parties -other than the DUP who will never support him -lined up behind him, he doesnt have the numbers in the Commons.
The DUP cannot be relied upon under all circumstances - the 'border' in the Irish sea, springs to mind, and that one is quite likely.
To be fair I know a number of Tories who would love a Corbyn minority government propped up by the LDs and SNP and Greens, add the DUP too and the Tories would still be easily the biggest party but have opposition all to themselves
Who says the LDs would prop up a Corbyn government?
If the SNP, Plaid and the Greens vote for Corbyn and Sinn Fein take their seats, Corbyn could become PM even if only half the LDs vote for him and the other half abstain along with the DUP
On that basis every PM can create his or her own precedent! Baldwin in 1929 was not following a precedent in 1929 so why should another PM feel obliged to follow him.? Heath - and Brown - have set more recent precedents by attempting to remain in office.
Heath was following another Baldwin precedent - that of 1923/4.
Brown, as the clear loser, could and should have resigned following the other precedent of 1929, and so should that utter berk O'Donnell, who according to fairly solid information communicated to Rawnsley had already blocked an official complaint into maltreatment of staff by Brown.
But precedents clearly develop over time, they come into being when previously they did not exist. By their very nature they surely cannot be regarded as entirely inviolable, even if they are not flippantly going to be ignored. The possibility of a new precedent surely has to be taken into account, even if remote?
On that basis every PM can create his or her own precedent! Baldwin in 1929 was not following a precedent in 1929 so why should another PM feel obliged to follow him.? Heath - and Brown - have set more recent precedents by attempting to remain in office.
Heath was following another Baldwin precedent - that of 1923/4.
Brown, as the clear loser, could and should have resigned following the other precedent of 1929, and so should that utter berk O'Donnell, who according to fairly solid information communicated to Rawnsley had already blocked an official complaint into maltreatment of staff by Brown.
But the 1923/4 precedent did not apply in February 1974 in that the Tories had been comfortably the largest party following the 1923 election. Heath was not in that position.
On that basis every PM can create his or her own precedent! Baldwin in 1929 was not following a precedent in 1929 so why should another PM feel obliged to follow him.? Heath - and Brown - have set more recent precedents by attempting to remain in office.
Heath was following another Baldwin precedent - that of 1923/4.
Brown, as the clear loser, could and should have resigned following the other precedent of 1929, and so should that utter berk O'Donnell, who according to fairly solid information communicated to Rawnsley had already blocked an official complaint into maltreatment of staff by Brown.
But precedents clearly develop over time, they come into being when previously they did not exist. By their very nature they surely cannot be regarded as entirely inviolable, even if they are not flippantly going to be ignored. The possibility of a new precedent surely has to be taken into account, even if remote?
I think the Brown precedent will never be followed for two reasons:
1) it ignored all previous precedent
2) general consensus was he looked like a twat. Or perhaps, as it was Brown, I should say more of a twat.
On that basis every PM can create his or her own precedent! Baldwin in 1929 was not following a precedent in 1929 so why should another PM feel obliged to follow him.? Heath - and Brown - have set more recent precedents by attempting to remain in office.
Heath was following another Baldwin precedent - that of 1923/4.
Brown, as the clear loser, could and should have resigned following the other precedent of 1929, and so should that utter berk O'Donnell, who according to fairly solid information communicated to Rawnsley had already blocked an official complaint into maltreatment of staff by Brown.
But the 1923/4 precedent did not apply in February 1974 in that the Tories had been comfortably the largest party following the 1923 election. Heath was not in that position.
I've just skimmed Dominic Cummings's "essay" (book, more like), Some Thoughts on Education and Political Priorities. There is no doubting that he's bright (thanks to a couple of years spent reading while living in a "bunker" on his dad's farm (source), but he's all over the place intellectually and he's possibly internally still trying to show off to Oxford tutor Robin Lane Fox (who has a number of family connections that will be well known to students of the byways of the English far right). David Cameron may well have put his finger on it when he called Cummings a "career psychopath". (...)
Do say. What connections to the far right are you referring to?
I am only talking about Robin Lane Fox's family members' connections. He himself may be in the Geoffrey de Sainte Croix school of classical studies for all I know. I had in mind Augustus Lane Fox the archaeologist who adopted the surname Pitt Rivers and founded the museum in Oxford, who was strongly influenced in his view of social evolution by Herbert Spencer of "it is best they should die" fame; and George Pitt-Rivers the pro-eugenics admirer of Hitler who was interned under Regulation 18B during WW2.
I think she'd need at least 200 MPs to support her (which is close to two thirds) or she's toast.
I reckon she'd need a few more, enough to keep her opponents out of treble figures. "More than 100 Conservative MPs expressed no confidence in Mrs May's leadership" would finish her.
Talk me through the mechanism for finishing her, given she is then immune from challenge for the party leadership for a year.
She looks weak. She gets told by senior ministers as well as Graham Brady and Julian Smith: "You've got to go. We want a leader who enjoys better and more support in the PCP. A hundred of us have no confidence in you and there's no way back." She resigns. There's no formal mechanism but if she holds on to the doorframe then threats of cabinet resignations should be sufficient.
"I have no confidence in the PM's leadership" is a stronger statement than "I'd prefer John Redwood to be the leader".
How many votes do you think she would need?
159. A win is a win. Bad losers would have another chance the following year.
It's been said before, but this cannot go on. It is preposterous that a year on the Cabinet are still in near open rebellion and they clearly have no idea what they think they can get, or even want to ask for, let along deliver anything close to it.
I think nearly everyone who is sensible would have acknowledged things would be very difficult, but even those who thought it would be a disaster presumably thought it would be a disaster for other reasons, not because even among the Cabinet they are still at each other's throats after a year. It's very nearly a parody of incompetence and weakness.
I expected a political crisis because the contradictions of Brexit make it undeliverable except in a extremely compromised form. The detail of how that crisis has played out doesn't surprise me particularly. By contrast I don't much blame Theresa May for the muck up, as it was nailed on from the start.
On that basis every PM can create his or her own precedent! Baldwin in 1929 was not following a precedent in 1929 so why should another PM feel obliged to follow him.? Heath - and Brown - have set more recent precedents by attempting to remain in office.
Heath was following another Baldwin precedent - that of 1923/4.
Brown, as the clear loser, could and should have resigned following the other precedent of 1929, and so should that utter berk O'Donnell, who according to fairly solid information communicated to Rawnsley had already blocked an official complaint into maltreatment of staff by Brown.
But the 1923/4 precedent did not apply in February 1974 in that the Tories had been comfortably the largest party following the 1923 election. Heath was not in that position.
True, but he had more votes.
But so did Baldwin in 1929 - yet Heath was not inclined to follow that precedent!
Always worth remembering that the summer holidays represent a very big cooling off period as far as the Con party is concerned.
Between 24 July and 9 October, Parliament sits for just SEVEN days.
If nobody is at Westminster there's no scope for sending in letters to Brady, plotting etc, let alone the Govt losing a vote - because nobody is there.
If May is still PM on (approx) 10 July she will still be PM on 10 October.
This is the constant refrain we get from HYUFD who is a Conservative member and activist. Apparently anyone who doesn't give undying support to the May Government is automatically a supporter of Corbyn and a proponent of extreme socialism.
It suits the Conservatives to lump all the minor parties in the Corbyn boat and it's interesting to hear the odd snippet that the Conservatives wouldn't mind a couple of years of Corbyn minority Government (despite telling us all it would be the end of civilisation if he got into power) because they believe a grateful electorate would return the Conservatives for a generation with landslides ad nauseam.
On that basis every PM can create his or her own precedent! Baldwin in 1929 was not following a precedent in 1929 so why should another PM feel obliged to follow him.? Heath - and Brown - have set more recent precedents by attempting to remain in office.
Heath was following another Baldwin precedent - that of 1923/4.
Brown, as the clear loser, could and should have resigned following the other precedent of 1929, and so should that utter berk O'Donnell, who according to fairly solid information communicated to Rawnsley had already blocked an official complaint into maltreatment of staff by Brown.
But precedents clearly develop over time, they come into being when previously they did not exist. By their very nature they surely cannot be regarded as entirely inviolable, even if they are not flippantly going to be ignored. The possibility of a new precedent surely has to be taken into account, even if remote?
I think the Brown precedent will never be followed for two reasons:
1) it ignored all previous precedent
2) general consensus was he looked like a twat. Or perhaps, as it was Brown, I should say more of a twat.
I strongly disagree there - it was argued at the time that Brown had a duty to remain in office until an alternative PM had emerged who could command a majority.
On that basis every PM can create his or her own precedent! Baldwin in 1929 was not following a precedent in 1929 so why should another PM feel obliged to follow him.? Heath - and Brown - have set more recent precedents by attempting to remain in office.
Heath was following another Baldwin precedent - that of 1923/4.
Brown, as the clear loser, could and should have resigned following the other precedent of 1929, and so should that utter berk O'Donnell, who according to fairly solid information communicated to Rawnsley had already blocked an official complaint into maltreatment of staff by Brown.
But the 1923/4 precedent did not apply in February 1974 in that the Tories had been comfortably the largest party following the 1923 election. Heath was not in that position.
True, but he had more votes.
But so did Baldwin in 1929 - yet Heath was not inclined to follow that precedent!
Baldwin was sensible enough to know there was no realistic way to form a majority government.
Gordon Brown, who got the worst result of any incumbent Prime Minister in history (in terms of the popular vote) and would have needed the votes of all but one of the other parties to stay in office, was in a far worse situation in fact. However, he didn't want to appreciate that fact for the simple reason he was an egotistical fool and had spent all his life pursuing power and couldn't face admitting nobody but him thought he was fit to hold it.
The irony is that had he resigned the Liberal Democrats would almost certainly have gone for confidence and supply and Labour would have been back in power in three years.
On that basis every PM can create his or her own precedent! Baldwin in 1929 was not following a precedent in 1929 so why should another PM feel obliged to follow him.? Heath - and Brown - have set more recent precedents by attempting to remain in office.
Heath was following another Baldwin precedent - that of 1923/4.
Brown, as the clear loser, could and should have resigned following the other precedent of 1929, and so should that utter berk O'Donnell, who according to fairly solid information communicated to Rawnsley had already blocked an official complaint into maltreatment of staff by Brown.
But precedents clearly develop over time, they come into being when previously they did not exist. By their very nature they surely cannot be regarded as entirely inviolable, even if they are not flippantly going to be ignored. The possibility of a new precedent surely has to be taken into account, even if remote?
I think the Brown precedent will never be followed for two reasons:
1) it ignored all previous precedent
2) general consensus was he looked like a twat. Or perhaps, as it was Brown, I should say more of a twat.
I strongly disagree there - it was argued at the time that Brown had a duty to remain in office until an alternative PM had emerged who could command a majority.
Yes. By him. And his tiny handful of supporters. And Gus O'Donnell, a man who was utterly unfit to hold public office. But not anyone else. To swing voters, he looked like a twat. He was so ridiculous that people actually laughed at that Downing Street statement where he talked about the coalition with the Lib Dems.
On that basis every PM can create his or her own precedent! Baldwin in 1929 was not following a precedent in 1929 so why should another PM feel obliged to follow him.? Heath - and Brown - have set more recent precedents by attempting to remain in office.
Heath was following another Baldwin precedent - that of 1923/4.
Brown, as the clear loser, could and should have resigned following the other precedent of 1929, and so should that utter berk O'Donnell, who according to fairly solid information communicated to Rawnsley had already blocked an official complaint into maltreatment of staff by Brown.
But the 1923/4 precedent did not apply in February 1974 in that the Tories had been comfortably the largest party following the 1923 election. Heath was not in that position.
True, but he had more votes.
But so did Baldwin in 1929 - yet Heath was not inclined to follow that precedent!
Baldwin was sensible enough to know there was no realistic way to form a majority government.
Gordon Brown, who got the worst result of any incumbent Prime Minister in history (in terms of the popular vote) and would have needed the votes of all but one of the other parties to stay in office, was in a far worse situation in fact. However, he didn't want to appreciate that fact for the simple reason he was an egotistical fool and had spent all his life pursuing power and couldn't face admitting nobody but him thought he was fit to hold it.
The irony is that had he resigned the Liberal Democrats would almost certainly have gone for confidence and supply and Labour would have been back in power in three years.
Many commentators were saying that Brown had no choice but to remain in office in a caretaker capacity until negotiations between the various parties had annointed a clear successor to him. I was not personally persuaded by that line , but it seemed to be the consensus view at the time.
That's gains of Fife, Essex and Surrey and a loss in Berkshire.
I think (as voiced by the Guardian yesterday) the Great Strawberry Famine is no longer the top concern.
It is the Great Au Pair Famine.
What use are strawberries in abundance, if there is no free labour from Gudrun to prepare them & serve them to your children.
I did suggest here about seven years ago that it wouldn't be long before the metropolitan upper-middle classes looked upon domestic servants as a necessity.
And would blame the government if they weren't available in sufficiently cheap and servile numbers.
The Tories did actually win Lewisham East in 1983 and 1987 so it is not completely impossible.
Though it would likely require a huge turnout in Blackheath combined with an abysmal turnout elsewhere in the constituency.
It is the opening match of the World Cup that Thursday.
Well, stranger things have happened and if it is a low turnout and the Tories hold their vote while a lot of the Labour vote moves to the LDs anything could happen
That's gains of Fife, Essex and Surrey and a loss in Berkshire.
I think (as voiced by the Guardian yesterday) the Great Strawberry Famine is no longer the top concern.
It is the Great Au Pair Famine.
What use are strawberries in abundance, if there is no free labour from Gudrun to prepare them & serve them to your children.
I did suggest here about seven years ago that it wouldn't be long before the metropolitan upper-middle classes looked upon domestic servants as a necessity.
And would blame the government if they weren't available in sufficiently cheap and servile numbers.
Not just Metropolitan middle classes. A lot of shift workers rely on Au Pairs as conventional childcare arrangements are generally less flexible, and able to cope with out of hours.
I was looked after by Au Pairs for 5 years while my mother was seriously ill and in and out of hospital. I remember several fondly. The most exotic was a Francophone Dahomian. She wore splendid traditional dress, and it was when she moved in that we found out how racist some of our neighbours were.
Please explain how by ousting May the Brexiteers in the Tory party are making it more likely that Corbyn will be PM.
The Tory Leavers are now toxic nationally. By keeping them on some kind of leash, Theresa is at least getting a bit of respect. Were she to go and a Leaver take over, then the country's disgust and fury would know no limits. The Tory Leavers make Corbyn look palatable.
Tory Leavers are about a third of the voters, so plainly not that toxic.
I offer silly odds and hope that an associate of mine takes the bet.
When they win, they pay me what's left after the Betfair commission and the other party's 'commission'
Is that really silly odds though?
Afterall if a 5/1 shot is a valued at 10/1 then that's a bargain.
While the odds of the Tories winning are miniscule is 1000/1 + Betfair commission + intermediate's commission really "silly"? What should the true odds be that makes 1000/1 such good value?
Comments
The G7 is beginning to make pb.com look good-tempered in comparison.
Certain leavers like Johnson and Mogg might be toxic for other reasons but not because of Brexit. If someone like Dominic Raab took over for example, he would be perceived very differently.
Whatever happens, the Fixed Term Parliament Act still means no election before 2022, and it is impossible for Corbyn to form a government without an election. The numbers just dont stack up.
There are only two ways that Corbyn becomes PM from a change in Tory leader.
1: New leader gets boost in polls, calls early election, does as badly as May in campaign, loses election.
2: A dozen Tory MPs defect to a third party and vote No Confidence precipitating an early election.
Neither is likely.
Davis is a plank.
What most certainly will not happen is that Corbyn will be PM without an election. Even with all the other parties -other than the DUP who will never support him -lined up behind him, he doesnt have the numbers in the Commons.
Monty Hall has opened one door, showing a car. It doesn't matter whether we stick or swap, we are going home with a goat.
Remainers have enough support to make Brexit almost unworkable. Leavers have enough support to make Bremain almost unworkable. Impasse.
We go to a holding position, and revisit everything in 5 years time. I think another referendum is inevitable in the medium term.
I concluded that back in July 2016.
Although JohnO (and a few other people) have persuaded me that I should support Theresa, as the alternative will be much much worse.
#IStandWithTheresa
Your tears only feed us and make us stronger.
More than half way through the runs in rather less than half the overs.
Roughly speaking run a ball needed with eight wickets left.
In what way would your support matter?
On May and the gang, certainly she has shown herself as not being up to what was, admittedly, a very difficult task even before her decision to go for a GE ended up making it even harder in terms of parliamentary arithmetic. But Boris and co have sniped and whinged and threatened to quit practically since day one, so frankly seem more interested in personal advantage than anything else, or they'd have acted sooner - if it was about needing to be decisive or take other options with enough time to actually attempt them they would have to have acted sooner, by necessity.
If even the Cabinet plotters are this angry then the other rebels should bring down May even if they think that risks Corbyn coming to power - if they sincerely think it is so important then they should be prepared for that risk, not whinge and threaten about it for a year. No, it means it is harder, and there are more hoops to go through. But in the event of chaos or paralysis many oddities may occur.
While I entirely believe he could have said it, the only source I can find is John Crace's sketch on his select committee appearance. Does anyone know if he actually said it or is this an urban legend?
It should be noted that Cummings was a fluent liar and hopeless incompetent at the DfES, where he sold out to the civil servants and then blamed their opposition after his own policies were so ineptly implemented they caused an (ongoing) fiasco.
So I can quite believe he said it but I would like a reliable source for it.
Secondly Mrs May has handled Brexit as best she could and really there is no alternative to what she has done if we want to respect the Leave vote and get any sort of deal with the EU.
17 million voted Leave, more than have voted for anything in the UK since WW2, so clearly May had to trigger Article 50. Staying in the single market is clearly not an option, at least not for a decade, as it requires free movement which would disrespect the Leave vote. Staying in the Customs Union prevents the UK doing any free trade deals which Brexiteers would not accept. Paying an exit bill and having regulatory alignment was the only way to move past Phase 1 of the talks with the EU and onto FTA discussions and also to avoid a hard border in Ireland.
(Fingers crossed I haven't jinxed Gloucestershire's Last batsman...)
Edit - it must be a small ground, Yorkshire's Joe Root has just hit a six...
Edit edit - and now Root does what he does best. Throw it away when well set.
Too many of these stories over the past 12 months.
Yeah, that's fine as a joke, but speaking as someone who think they probably did make a mistake in the referendum, that kind of talk won't help anything in terms of either stopping Brexit or trying to get a least harmful Brexit as is possible. It only makes it easier for those pushing for as hard a Brexit as possible to dismiss anyone who wants to remain/rejoin, or even have a softer Brexit, as being unhinged. It's incredibly counter productive thinking, which bodes poorly for actions.
And yes, it was also always wrong when some leavers called remainers/rejoiners traitors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=41&v=fJjShkGCa4c
The very strength of our system would seem to be that where there is a will there is a way, within reason.
Just remembered that the appointment of Digby Jones by Brown marked the initiation of the GOAT term. What an effing joke that's turned out to be.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5073643/The-toxic-tweets-Putin-s-pro-Brexit-troll-factory.html
"I have no confidence in the PM's leadership" is a stronger statement than "I'd prefer John Redwood to be the leader".
How many votes do you think she would need?
Hold to your hats!
It is a bet I'm not expecting to win, it was struck last July.
I think nearly everyone who is sensible would have acknowledged things would be very difficult, but even those who thought it would be a disaster presumably thought it would be a disaster for other reasons, not because even among the Cabinet they are still at each other's throats after a year. It's very nearly a parody of incompetence and weakness.
How would you price "May out before the end of March 2019" for example? Roughly evens?
*other crowds are available
Navarro added that the joint G-7 communique, a statement of shared beliefs that usually accompanies the close of the meeting, was a "socialist document."...
Could be looking at the G6 soon....
42% said they would prefer the EFTA/EEA route post-Brexit with 45% opposing. That is just of Leave voters. Add in a significant number (I would suggest a good majority) of Remain voters and I would think you would have an overall majority in favour of EFTA/EEA at this point.
Alternatively you might finish up with a final two who are both Brexiteers - Let's say Boris and Gove are the final two - In those circumstances they'd probably make a PM/CotE pact with each other.
Brown, as the clear loser, could and should have resigned following the other precedent of 1929, and so should that utter berk O'Donnell, who according to fairly solid information communicated to Rawnsley had already blocked an official complaint into maltreatment of staff by Brown.
If I had an empty book, I'd be laying 2018 as the year of her departure.
Incidentally may I make a suggestion having watched it? If people want to refer to a lying, twisting, shameless, incompetent, lazy, useless whoreson and cannot use a four letter c-word, should we use in future the expression 'a Cummings?'
Edit - and if anyone wants to see real humiliation may I suggest the game at Malahide?
Amongst Leave voters 59% prioritised ending free movement over staying in the single market, just 13% prioritised staying in the single market with 28% unsure.
http://opinium.co.uk/political-polling-6th-june-2018/ (v104)
1) it ignored all previous precedent
2) general consensus was he looked like a twat. Or perhaps, as it was Brown, I should say more of a twat.
Between 24 July and 9 October, Parliament sits for just SEVEN days.
If nobody is at Westminster there's no scope for sending in letters to Brady, plotting etc, let alone the Govt losing a vote - because nobody is there.
If May is still PM on (approx) 10 July she will still be PM on 10 October.
It suits the Conservatives to lump all the minor parties in the Corbyn boat and it's interesting to hear the odd snippet that the Conservatives wouldn't mind a couple of years of Corbyn minority Government (despite telling us all it would be the end of civilisation if he got into power) because they believe a grateful electorate would return the Conservatives for a generation with landslides ad nauseam.
Gordon Brown, who got the worst result of any incumbent Prime Minister in history (in terms of the popular vote) and would have needed the votes of all but one of the other parties to stay in office, was in a far worse situation in fact. However, he didn't want to appreciate that fact for the simple reason he was an egotistical fool and had spent all his life pursuing power and couldn't face admitting nobody but him thought he was fit to hold it.
The irony is that had he resigned the Liberal Democrats would almost certainly have gone for confidence and supply and Labour would have been back in power in three years.
https://twitter.com/msmithsonpb/status/1005843906947420162?s=21
Scotland needed to bowl England out, but they might just do it.
Anyway, the garden beckons. Have a good evening everyone.
Though it would likely require a huge turnout in Blackheath combined with an abysmal turnout elsewhere in the constituency.
And would blame the government if they weren't available in sufficiently cheap and servile numbers.
When they win, they pay me what's left after the Betfair commission and the other party's 'commission'
I was looked after by Au Pairs for 5 years while my mother was seriously ill and in and out of hospital. I remember several fondly. The most exotic was a Francophone Dahomian. She wore splendid traditional dress, and it was when she moved in that we found out how racist some of our neighbours were.
Afterall if a 5/1 shot is a valued at 10/1 then that's a bargain.
While the odds of the Tories winning are miniscule is 1000/1 + Betfair commission + intermediate's commission really "silly"? What should the true odds be that makes 1000/1 such good value?