If there is a vote of confidence the margin should be key. If May wins a landslide she could even lead the Tories at the next general election, if May gets 60 to 70% she should survive until at least the end of the transition period but probably not longer, if May scrapes a win with 50 to 60% of the vote she could be fatally wounded.
In 1990 remember Thatcher technically won with 55% of Tory MPs backing her against Heseltine, in reality she lacked the mandate to go on and within a month she had resigned and John Major succeeded her as PM
The rules were different then. I expect she'll hang on if she has a majority of one.
I agree with that
I think that the only way that they could get her out, if say, she won 160 to 155, would be if loads of the 155 said they would no longer follow the whip.
An organised push to remove her should surely include a deal with the DUP.
As soon as the NoConfidence vote is announced Dodds&Foster simply announce they too have no confidence in a May led tory gov.. and May is gone (unless she has 155 MPs willing to risk an immediate Corbyn gov.)
The DUP then effectively get to select the next PM from her potential replacements - perfect.
It does not work that way
Bit of a limp response. No DUP = No Majority : resolve that.
The DUP do not elect the leader. The MP's and members do. Nothing to do with majorities
So how many of your 'electorate' are going to vote for a candidate that cannot command a majority in the HoC? The stupid party would need to excel itself to do that.
No idea what you are talking about.
I think your last sentence reveals you are not a conservative so clearly do not understand how the leader is elected
Interestingly it seems much of the Labour gain comes in Scotland with Labour ahead in Scotland on 39% with the SNP on 34% and the Tories on 21%. In England Labour are on 42% and the Tories are on 41%. In Wales the Tories are ahead on 42% to 34% (the latter seems an aberration unless Andrew RT Davies really was that unpopular).
Leavers split Tory 53%, Labour 28%, LD 4%, Other 12% post Chequers Brexit plan, Remainers split Labour 48%, Tory 29%, LD 15%, Other 4%
If anyone thinks labour is ahead in Scotland they need certifying
We will see but Corbyn did gain seats in Scotland at the last general election, especially in the Central belt
I think I know Scotland and its politics quite well having lived there and have my wife's family there and no way are labour ahead of the SNP and I doubt they are ahead of Ruth.
And as for Wales it just confirms the stupidity of these subsets. Those figures are for the birds
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
We do not need any more evidence in Scotland. Labour are not going to make inroads on the SNP
Well we have evidence Labour gained 6 seats from the SNP at the last general election, whether they have made any further inroads we need further polling to support
The last Scottish YouGov poll showed a 3.5% swing from Lab to the SNP since the last general election, Panelbase showed a 1.5% swing from Lab to the SNP, these are the only pollsters to have polled in the last 3 months.
I'm calling that Survation subsample for what it is, utter bollocks.
Interestingly it seems much of the Labour gain comes in Scotland with Labour ahead in Scotland on 39% with the SNP on 34% and the Tories on 21%. In England Labour are on 42% and the Tories are on 41%. In Wales the Tories are ahead on 42% to 34% (the latter seems an aberration unless Andrew RT Davies really was that unpopular).
Leavers split Tory 53%, Labour 28%, LD 4%, Other 12% post Chequers Brexit plan, Remainers split Labour 48%, Tory 29%, LD 15%, Other 4%
If anyone thinks labour is ahead in Scotland they need certifying
We will see but Corbyn did gain seats in Scotland at the last general election, especially in the Central belt
I think I know Scotland and its politics quite well having lived there and have my wife's family there and no way are labour ahead of the SNP and I doubt they are ahead of Ruth.
And as for Wales it just confirms the stupidity of these subsets. Those figures are for the birds
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
We do not need any more evidence in Scotland. Labour are not going to make inroads on the SNP
Well we have evidence Labour gained 6 seats from the SNP at the last general election, whether they have made any further inroads we need further polling to support
The last Scottish YouGov poll showed a 3.5% swing from Lab to the SNP since the last general election, Panelbase showed a 1.5% swing from Lab to the SNP, these are the only pollsters to have polled in the last 3 months.
I'm calling that Survation subsample for what it is, utter bollocks.
Looking at thee UKIP, Conservaitve and Labour official YouTube feeds, none of the parties have particularly big 'reach'. Videos a month old with under 1k views.
Though that may not include views through other media, such as Facebook.
If there is a vote of confidence the margin should be key. If May wins a landslide she could even lead the Tories at the next general election, if May gets 60 to 70% she should survive until at least the end of the transition period but probably not longer, if May scrapes a win with 50 to 60% of the vote she could be fatally wounded.
In 1990 remember Thatcher technically won with 55% of Tory MPs backing her against Heseltine, in reality she lacked the mandate to go on and within a month she had resigned and John Major succeeded her as PM
The rules were different then. I expect she'll hang on if she has a majority of one.
I agree with that
I think that the only way that they could get her out, if say, she won 160 to 155, would be if loads of the 155 said they would no longer follow the whip.
An organised push to remove her should surely include a deal with the DUP.
As soon as the NoConfidence vote is announced Dodds&Foster simply announce they too have no confidence in a May led tory gov.. and May is gone (unless she has 155 MPs willing to risk an immediate Corbyn gov.)
The DUP then effectively get to select the next PM from her potential replacements - perfect.
It does not work that way
Bit of a limp response. No DUP = No Majority : resolve that.
The DUP do not elect the leader. The MP's and members do. Nothing to do with majorities
So how many of your 'electorate' are going to vote for a candidate that cannot command a majority in the HoC? The stupid party would need to excel itself to do that.
Interestingly it seems much of the Labour gain comes in Scotland with Labour ahead in Scotland on 39% with the SNP on 34% and the Tories on 21%. In England Labour are on 42% and the Tories are on 41%. In Wales the Tories are ahead on 42% to 34% (the latter seems an aberration unless Andrew RT Davies really was that unpopular).
Leavers split Tory 53%, Labour 28%, LD 4%, Other 12% post Chequers Brexit plan, Remainers split Labour 48%, Tory 29%, LD 15%, Other 4%
If anyone thinks labour is ahead in Scotland they need certifying
We will see but Corbyn did gain seats in Scotland at the last general election, especially in the Central belt
I think I know Scotland and its politics quite well having lived there and have my wife's family there and no way are labour ahead of the SNP and I doubt they are ahead of Ruth.
And as for Wales it just confirms the stupidity of these subsets. Those figures are for the birds
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
If I was leader of a hard right party, I'd avoid having my hair styled like Anne Marie's. I may be being unfair, perhaps she's at least shaved off her moustache.
Interestingly it seems much of the Labour gain comes in Scotland with Labour ahead in Scotland on 39% with the SNP on 34% and the Tories on 21%. In England Labour are on 42% and the Tories are on 41%. In Wales the Tories are ahead on 42% to 34% (the latter seems an aberration unless Andrew RT Davies really was that unpopular).
Leavers split Tory 53%, Labour 28%, LD 4%, Other 12% post Chequers Brexit plan, Remainers split Labour 48%, Tory 29%, LD 15%, Other 4%
If anyone thinks labour is ahead in Scotland they need certifying
We will see but Corbyn did gain seats in Scotland at the last general election, especially in the Central belt
I think I know Scotland and its politics quite well having lived there and have my wife's family there and no way are labour ahead of the SNP and I doubt they are ahead of Ruth.
And as for Wales it just confirms the stupidity of these subsets. Those figures are for the birds
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
We do not need any more evidence in Scotland. Labour are not going to make inroads on the SNP
Well we have evidence Labour gained 6 seats from the SNP at the last general election, whether they have made any further inroads we need further polling to support
The last Scottish YouGov poll showed a 3.5% swing from Lab to the SNP since the last general election, Panelbase showed a 1.5% swing from Lab to the SNP, these are the only pollsters to have polled in the last 3 months.
I'm calling that Survation subsample for what it is, utter bollocks.
Have any of those been in the last few weeks? Survation of course was the most accurate pollster at the last general election
Interestingly it seems much of the Labour gain comes in Scotland with Labour ahead in Scotland on 39% with the SNP on 34% and the Tories on 21%. In England Labour are on 42% and the Tories are on 41%. In Wales the Tories are ahead on 42% to 34% (the latter seems an aberration unless Andrew RT Davies really was that unpopular).
Leavers split Tory 53%, Labour 28%, LD 4%, Other 12% post Chequers Brexit plan, Remainers split Labour 48%, Tory 29%, LD 15%, Other 4%
If anyone thinks labour is ahead in Scotland they need certifying
We will see but Corbyn did gain seats in Scotland at the last general election, especially in the Central belt
I think I know Scotland and its politics quite well having lived there and have my wife's family there and no way are labour ahead of the SNP and I doubt they are ahead of Ruth.
And as for Wales it just confirms the stupidity of these subsets. Those figures are for the birds
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
We do not need any more evidence in Scotland. Labour are not going to make inroads on the SNP
Well we have evidence Labour gained 6 seats from the SNP at the last general election, whether they have made any further inroads we need further polling to support
The last Scottish YouGov poll showed a 3.5% swing from Lab to the SNP since the last general election, Panelbase showed a 1.5% swing from Lab to the SNP, these are the only pollsters to have polled in the last 3 months.
I'm calling that Survation subsample for what it is, utter bollocks.
Have any of those been in the last few weeks? Survation of course was the most accurate pollster at the last general election
If anyone thinks labour is ahead in Scotland they need certifying
We will see but Corbyn did gain seats in Scotland at the last general election, especially in the Central belt
I think I know Scotland and its politics quite well having lived there and have my wife's family there and no way are labour ahead of the SNP and I doubt they are ahead of Ruth.
And as for Wales it just confirms the stupidity of these subsets. Those figures are for the birds
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
We do not need any more evidence in Scotland. Labour are not going to make inroads on the SNP
Well we have evidence Labour gained 6 seats from the SNP at the last general election, whether they have made any further inroads we need further polling to support
The last Scottish YouGov poll showed a 3.5% swing from Lab to the SNP since the last general election, Panelbase showed a 1.5% swing from Lab to the SNP, these are the only pollsters to have polled in the last 3 months.
I'm calling that Survation subsample for what it is, utter bollocks.
Have any of those been in the last few weeks? Survation of course was the most accurate pollster at the last general election
Just give up
Nothing to give up. Survation called the last general election more accurately than any other pollster in its final poll and also got the 2015 general election more accurately than any other pollster in its final unpublished poll, so we have to pay particular attention to what Survation polls are showing.
Survation's final 2017 subsample for Scotland had the SNP on 41%, the Tories on 25% and Labour on 29%. Even if they overestimated Labour a bit and underestimated the Tories they also overestimated the SNP a bit too. It was not far from the final result of SNP 37%, Tories 29%, Labour 27%
Interestingly it seems much of the Labour gain comes in Scotland with Labour ahead in Scotland on 39% with the SNP on 34% and the Tories on 21%. In England Labour are on 42% and the Tories are on 41%. In Wales the Tories are ahead on 42% to 34% (the latter seems an aberration unless Andrew RT Davies really was that unpopular).
Leavers split Tory 53%, Labour 28%, LD 4%, Other 12% post Chequers Brexit plan, Remainers split Labour 48%, Tory 29%, LD 15%, Other 4%
If anyone thinks labour is ahead in Scotland they need certifying
We will see but Corbyn did gain seats in Scotland at the last general election, especially in the Central belt
I think I know Scotland and its politics quite well having lived there and have my wife's family there and no way are labour ahead of the SNP and I doubt they are ahead of Ruth.
And as for Wales it just confirms the stupidity of these subsets. Those figures are for the birds
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
We do not need any more evidence in Scotland. Labour are not going to make inroads on the SNP
Well we have evidence Labour gained 6 seats from the SNP at the last general election, whether they have made any further inroads we need further polling to support
The last Scottish YouGov poll showed a 3.5% swing from Lab to the SNP since the last general election, Panelbase showed a 1.5% swing from Lab to the SNP, these are the only pollsters to have polled in the last 3 months.
I'm calling that Survation subsample for what it is, utter bollocks.
Have any of those been in the last few weeks? Survation of course was the most accurate pollster at the last general election
Just give up
Nothing to give up. Survation called the last general election more accurately than any other pollster in its final poll and also got the 2015 general election more accurately than any other pollster in its final unpublished poll, so we have to pay particular attention to what Survation polls are showing
Nothing to give up. Survation called the last general election more accurately than any other pollster in its final poll and also got the 2015 general election more accurately than any other pollster in its final unpublished poll, so we have to pay particular attention to what Survation polls are showing
Yes we should give attention to Survation, but not their Scottish subsample.
Their final poll of the last general election which got the result so close, their Scottish subsample had the SNP ahead, Labour in second, and the Tories third.
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
Not ahead of the SNP for goodness sake.
I know it's midsummer, but are we REALLY debating subsamples?
If I was leader of a hard right party, I'd avoid having my hair styled like Anne Marie's. I may be being unfair, perhaps she's at least shaved off her moustache.
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
Not ahead of the SNP for goodness sake.
I know it's midsummer, but are we REALLY debating subsamples?
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
Not ahead of the SNP for goodness sake.
I know it's midsummer, but are we REALLY debating subsamples?
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
Not ahead of the SNP for goodness sake.
I know it's midsummer, but are we REALLY debating subsamples?
Not just any subsamples but Scottish subsamples.
Based on a Scottish subsample, it's not coming home.
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
Not ahead of the SNP for goodness sake.
I know it's midsummer, but are we REALLY debating subsamples?
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
Not ahead of the SNP for goodness sake.
I know it's midsummer, but are we REALLY debating subsamples?
No better way to spend a balmy summer's evening with a glass of white wine than debating a Scottish subsample!
Nothing to give up. Survation called the last general election more accurately than any other pollster in its final poll and also got the 2015 general election more accurately than any other pollster in its final unpublished poll, so we have to pay particular attention to what Survation polls are showing
Yes we should give attention to Survation, but not their Scottish subsample.
Their final poll of the last general election which got the result so close, their Scottish subsample had the SNP ahead, Labour in second, and the Tories third.
In terms of voteshare as I said they were not miles off and the SNP did come ahead in 2017, they just got the Tory and Labour shares the wrong way around
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
Not ahead of the SNP for goodness sake.
I know it's midsummer, but are we REALLY debating subsamples?
No better way to spend a balmy summer's evening with a glass of white wine than debating a Scottish subsample!
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
Not ahead of the SNP for goodness sake.
I know it's midsummer, but are we REALLY debating subsamples?
No better way to spend a balmy summer's evening with a glass of white wine than debating a Scottish subsample!
I suspect it is more than a glass
Anyway, I am off to do the hoovering and cleaning you will be pleased to here so will leave it there
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
Not ahead of the SNP for goodness sake.
I know it's midsummer, but are we REALLY debating subsamples?
No better way to spend a balmy summer's evening with a glass of white wine than debating a Scottish subsample!
I suspect it is more than a glass
Anyway, I am off to do the hoovering and cleaning you will be pleased to here so will leave it there
Big g , I have been agreeing with all you have said these last few days.
However I thought you were a bit harsh on Sterling.His speed really frightens opponents ,and I thought he had a decent game against Sweden apart from the final finish.Which I hope will happen .As is did last season for Man City.
Nothing to give up. Survation called the last general election more accurately than any other pollster in its final poll and also got the 2015 general election more accurately than any other pollster in its final unpublished poll, so we have to pay particular attention to what Survation polls are showing
Yes we should give attention to Survation, but not their Scottish subsample.
Their final poll of the last general election which got the result so close, their Scottish subsample had the SNP ahead, Labour in second, and the Tories third.
In terms of voteshare as I said they were not miles off and the SNP did come ahead in 2017, they just got the Tory and Labour shares the wrong way around
Yeah, just the difference between PM Corbyn and PM May. Minor thing.
So just catching everyone up on yesterday's engagement events. The Nyetimber went down a treat, my dad's outdoor wood burning oven is unbelievably amazing for BBQs and two people threw up behind the shed from too much food/booze (I wasn't one of them!). Also, that coupled with an England win was probably the best party I'll ever host. Expectations for the wedding are rising!
If I was leader of a hard right party, I'd avoid having my hair styled like Anne Marie's. I may be being unfair, perhaps she's at least shaved off her moustache.
Harsh but fair.
Her name sounds FRENCH. Who's she supporting for the World Cup, then?
Big g , I have been agreeing with all you have said these last few days.
However I thought you were a bit harsh on Sterling.His speed really frightens opponents ,and I thought he had a decent game against Sweden apart from the final finish.Which I hope will happen .As is did last season for Man City.
Interestingly it seems much of the Labour gain comes in Scotland with Labour ahead in Scotland on 39% with the SNP on 34% and the Tories on 21%. In England Labour are on 42% and the Tories are on 41%. In Wales the Tories are ahead on 42% to 34% (the latter seems an aberration unless Andrew RT Davies really was that unpopular).
Leavers split Tory 53%, Labour 28%, LD 4%, Other 12% post Chequers Brexit plan, Remainers split Labour 48%, Tory 29%, LD 15%, Other 4%
If anyone thinks labour is ahead in Scotland they need certifying
We will see but Corbyn did gain seats in Scotland at the last general election, especially in the Central belt
I think I know Scotland and its politics quite well having lived there and have my wife's family there and no way are labour ahead of the SNP and I doubt they are ahead of Ruth.
And as for Wales it just confirms the stupidity of these subsets. Those figures are for the birds
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
The most recent proper Scotland poll had Labour well down. You just look stupid quoting sub-samples.
Big g , I have been agreeing with all you have said these last few days.
However I thought you were a bit harsh on Sterling.His speed really frightens opponents ,and I thought he had a decent game against Sweden apart from the final finish.Which I hope will happen .As is did last season for Man City.
Big g , I have been agreeing with all you have said these last few days.
However I thought you were a bit harsh on Sterling.His speed really frightens opponents ,and I thought he had a decent game against Sweden apart from the final finish.Which I hope will happen .As is did last season for Man City.
Having not been following Brexit too closely recently, can someone summarise the current plan for me.
Is it just concede everything to the EU and basically have to do everything that they tell us?
Don't worry ! No-one else has the slightest clue what's going on with Brexit either. Especially Theresa May doesn't. But we can safely say it will be utter crap.
Big g , I have been agreeing with all you have said these last few days.
However I thought you were a bit harsh on Sterling.His speed really frightens opponents ,and I thought he had a decent game against Sweden apart from the final finish.Which I hope will happen .As is did last season for Man City.
So just catching everyone up on yesterday's engagement events. The Nyetimber went down a treat, my dad's outdoor wood burning oven is unbelievably amazing for BBQs and two people threw up behind the shed from too much food/booze (I wasn't one of them!). Also, that coupled with an England win was probably the best party I'll ever host. Expectations for the wedding are rising!
I don't know whether to congratulate you on a fabulous party or commiserate that the wedding will be an anti-climax.
Interesting where political talk can crop up - on the train back from the cricket a gentlemen opined that the severe overcrowding was the result of privatization, which he described as fascism. Not sure I've even heard Corbynite suggest that.
So just catching everyone up on yesterday's engagement events. The Nyetimber went down a treat, my dad's outdoor wood burning oven is unbelievably amazing for BBQs and two people threw up behind the shed from too much food/booze (I wasn't one of them!). Also, that coupled with an England win was probably the best party I'll ever host. Expectations for the wedding are rising!
I don't know whether to congratulate you on a fabulous party or commiserate that the wedding will be an anti-climax.
We've got until the end of September for people to forget about this one! Though it was only 35-40 people vs about 80 that will be attending the wedding.
On topic: if you have the numbers, the first we should hear is its announcement. If not, you are looking to gauge support
There seems little doubt the numbers are there to provoke a contest, but without Cabinet resignations signifying a major split among the party grandees winning it seems impossible, so is it all talk, or would the rebels at least want to have a contest to show they fought this path, even if they get behind it afterwards in the name of party loyalty.
Will anyone spell out the 'consequences' we will face if the EU alters the common rule book in the future and our Parliament decides not to accept those changes?
Interestingly it seems much of the Labour gain comes in Scotland with Labour ahead in Scotland on 39% with the SNP on 34% and the Tories on 21%. In England Labour are on 42% and the Tories are on 41%. In Wales the Tories are ahead on 42% to 34% (the latter seems an aberration unless Andrew RT Davies really was that unpopular).
Leavers split Tory 53%, Labour 28%, LD 4%, Other 12% post Chequers Brexit plan, Remainers split Labour 48%, Tory 29%, LD 15%, Other 4%
If anyone thinks labour is ahead in Scotland they need certifying
We will see but Corbyn did gain seats in Scotland at the last general election, especially in the Central belt
I think I know Scotland and its politics quite well having lived there and have my wife's family there and no way are labour ahead of the SNP and I doubt they are ahead of Ruth.
And as for Wales it just confirms the stupidity of these subsets. Those figures are for the birds
I agree on Wales. On Scotland though we need more evidence but after 11 years of an SNP executive at Holyrood and 8 years of a Tory government at Westminster I would not be too surprised to see Labour up a bit north of the border
We do not need any more evidence in Scotland. Labour are not going to make inroads on the SNP
I think we do! The polls have consistently overstated SNP support in Scotland in recent years. Moreover, in 2017 Labour was understated there in terms of both seats and vote share. In the context of a Westminster 6/7 week election campaign I would expect Labour to end up on circa 30% there - and will be surprised to see the SNP exceed 35%.
On topic: if you have the numbers, the first we should hear is its announcement. If not, you are looking to gauge support
There seems little doubt the numbers are there to provoke a contest, but without Cabinet resignations signifying a major split among the party grandees winning it seems impossible, so is it all talk, or would the rebels at least want to have a contest to show they fought this path, even if they get behind it afterwards in the name of party loyalty.
It's a private ballot. The cabinet can vote against her. If she loses, she's gone.
The 1992 confidence rules favour May. If she wins a simple majority she is technically safe for a year. If they are to challenge her they have to be sure to finish her.
I do not think the rules do favour May. Under the old system, she'd have beaten Boris or Jacob Rees-Mogg by a landslide but the new system is a simple confidence vote: May versus not-May. May versus the combined weight of those who think Davis or Hunt or a pot plant could do a better job than the woman who called an unnecessary election and lost her majority to Jeremy Corbyn of all people.
No, Theresa May could easily lose.
We'll know if I am wrong tomorrow when the CCHQ and Number 10 spin will stay as it is now: bring it on; crush the saboteurs. But if May's team reads pb and thinks I am right, the spin will change drastically: no time for distractions at such a crucial stage of Brexit negotiations.
Will anyone spell out the 'consequences' we will face if the EU alters the common rule book in the future and our Parliament decides not to accept those changes?
That is presumably one for negotiation. And it isn't a smart idea for the UK to pre-emptively suggest punishment. Let the EU start the bidding and we can then negotiate it down.
It is also important that the reciprocal situation exists to. If we raise our standards in animal welfare or whatever, the EU should decide whether to accept that or lose trade access.
Will anyone spell out the 'consequences' we will face if the EU alters the common rule book in the future and our Parliament decides not to accept those changes?
They'll be in the treaty. I assume there'll be some small print that let's us get out of anything really unreasonable. To be realistic, we are going to have to have some kind of arrangement of this nature in place for at least a period of time more or less whatever deal we get, even no deal. It'll take years, or more likely decades, to unpick all the areas of mutual recognition that we have built up.
Will anyone spell out the 'consequences' we will face if the EU alters the common rule book in the future and our Parliament decides not to accept those changes?
They'll be in the treaty. I assume there'll be some small print that let's us get out of anything really unreasonable. To be realistic, we are going to have to have some kind of arrangement of this nature in place for at least a period of time more or less whatever deal we get, even no deal. It'll take years, or more likely decades, to unpick all the areas of mutual recognition that we have built up.
If it works like Norway, we'll get notice of what is intended and the opportunity to raise any objections or make suggestions, although we won't have the right to vote against. If we object so strenuously that we aren't willing to do it, then that segment of the free market is closed off to us (since we will then not be able to guarantee that we're meeting the required standard).
Not ideal (which is why it's worse than staying in). But in practice I don't think there has ever been a case where Norway strenuously objected to any regulation (having exempted fishing in advance), most of which is just standardisation. Why would they? Say the EU wants car tyres to have a stamp showing the year of manufacture, from 2020. You're a tyre manufacturer - do you care enough to shut yourself out of the EU market? You say "yeah, whatever" and have the stamp so you can continue to export.
On topic: if you have the numbers, the first we should hear is its announcement. If not, you are looking to gauge support
There seems little doubt the numbers are there to provoke a contest, but without Cabinet resignations signifying a major split among the party grandees winning it seems impossible, so is it all talk, or would the rebels at least want to have a contest to show they fought this path, even if they get behind it afterwards in the name of party loyalty.
It's a private ballot. The cabinet can vote against her. If she loses, she's gone.
Yes they can theoretically vote against her...but on what pretext? They are on record as supporting her deal, even if they initially called it a turd. Are they going to oust her, stand as leader themselves on a platform of repudiating the deal they just agreed to, or back someone else who repudiates the deal they just backed?
If she were to lose we'd know that at least some in the Cabinet must have joined the rebellion, so we'd know even more what idiots they are, too cowardly to resign but then attempting to jump ship when someone else wields the knife.
Big g , I have been agreeing with all you have said these last few days.
However I thought you were a bit harsh on Sterling.His speed really frightens opponents ,and I thought he had a decent game against Sweden apart from the final finish.Which I hope will happen .As is did last season for Man City.
Having not been following Brexit too closely recently, can someone summarise the current plan for me.
Is it just concede everything to the EU and basically have to do everything that they tell us?
Freedom of movement? Ended. Common Agricultural Policy? Exited. Common Fisheries Policy? Exited. European Court of Justice writ? Exited. Common External Tariff? Exited. EU regulation? Exited for services (85% of the economy, traded globally), maintained for goods (15% of the economy, mainly traded regionally).
For smart Brexiteers (Gove, Raab etc) this is a great deal. For stupid Brexiteers (Boris, Nigel) it is worse than EU membership.
Services are not 85% of trade, they are much, much smaller. Services are much less likely to be imported /exported than goods. You are confusing % of economy with % of international trade.
Big g , I have been agreeing with all you have said these last few days.
However I thought you were a bit harsh on Sterling.His speed really frightens opponents ,and I thought he had a decent game against Sweden apart from the final finish.Which I hope will happen .As is did last season for Man City.
Yep he really frightens the opposition which is worth a lot although of course he should have put away his chances including the offside one.
People getting mouthy about how fantastic some players are and how dreadful others are are simply victims of internet hyperbole.
An awful lot of people judge individual England players through the prism of the PL clubs they support.
To a point but Raheem Sterling ought to put more chances away.
Or should he? For me, he is England's best chance of developing goal chances other than from set-pieces but it is disappointing how often there is no-one in the box to receive his pass and tap it in.
Having not been following Brexit too closely recently, can someone summarise the current plan for me.
Is it just concede everything to the EU and basically have to do everything that they tell us?
Freedom of movement? Ended. Common Agricultural Policy? Exited. Common Fisheries Policy? Exited. European Court of Justice writ? Exited. Common External Tariff? Exited. EU regulation? Exited for services (85% of the economy, traded globally), maintained for goods (15% of the economy, mainly traded regionally).
For smart Brexiteers (Gove, Raab etc) this is a great deal. For stupid Brexiteers (Boris, Nigel) it is worse than EU membership.
Services are not 85% of trade, they are much, much smaller. Services are much less likely to be imported /exported than goods. You are confusing % of economy with % of international trade.
The beneficial effect of trade is not the trade itself, but the impact it has on productivity across the entire sector through increased competition.
Will anyone spell out the 'consequences' we will face if the EU alters the common rule book in the future and our Parliament decides not to accept those changes?
They'll be in the treaty. I assume there'll be some small print that let's us get out of anything really unreasonable. To be realistic, we are going to have to have some kind of arrangement of this nature in place for at least a period of time more or less whatever deal we get, even no deal. It'll take years, or more likely decades, to unpick all the areas of mutual recognition that we have built up.
If it works like Norway, we'll get notice of what is intended and the opportunity to raise any objections or make suggestions, although we won't have the right to vote against. If we object so strenuously that we aren't willing to do it, then that segment of the free market is closed off to us (since we will then not be able to guarantee that we're meeting the required standard).
Not ideal (which is why it's worse than staying in). But in practice I don't think there has ever been a case where Norway strenuously objected to any regulation (having exempted fishing in advance), most of which is just standardisation. Why would they? Say the EU wants car tyres to have a stamp showing the year of manufacture, from 2020. You're a tyre manufacturer - do you care enough to shut yourself out of the EU market? You say "yeah, whatever" and have the stamp so you can continue to export.
In this case there's the additional point that any divergence would then require operational border infrastructure to ensure that non-conforming goods aren't being transported into the EU. Not a big issue for Norway which already has that infrastructure, but problematic in Ireland - unless the December agreement is rescinded then the backstop agreement would need to kick in.
I assume the May line will be "none of us think the backstop agreement is acceptable, but with these new proposals we can accept it because it will never happen." This is obviously a problem because the only way it will never happen is if Parliament never rejects a new EU rule. Not sure how that discussion will be dealt with.
Will anyone spell out the 'consequences' we will face if the EU alters the common rule book in the future and our Parliament decides not to accept those changes?
They'll be in the treaty. I assume there'll be some small print that let's us get out of anything really unreasonable. To be realistic, we are going to have to have some kind of arrangement of this nature in place for at least a period of time more or less whatever deal we get, even no deal. It'll take years, or more likely decades, to unpick all the areas of mutual recognition that we have built up.
If it works like Norway, we'll get notice of what is intended and the opportunity to raise any objections or make suggestions, although we won't have the right to vote against. If we object so strenuously that we aren't willing to do it, then that segment of the free market is closed off to us (since we will then not be able to guarantee that we're meeting the required standard).
Not ideal (which is why it's worse than staying in). But in practice I don't think there has ever been a case where Norway strenuously objected to any regulation (having exempted fishing in advance), most of which is just standardisation. Why would they? Say the EU wants car tyres to have a stamp showing the year of manufacture, from 2020. You're a tyre manufacturer - do you care enough to shut yourself out of the EU market? You say "yeah, whatever" and have the stamp so you can continue to export.
It's a system for us to largely go along with minor changes, but with an opportunity to escalate (to both sides' potential disadvantage) if they do anything excessive. Seems reasonable.
Will anyone spell out the 'consequences' we will face if the EU alters the common rule book in the future and our Parliament decides not to accept those changes?
They'll be in the treaty. I assume there'll be some small print that let's us get out of anything really unreasonable. To be realistic, we are going to have to have some kind of arrangement of this nature in place for at least a period of time more or less whatever deal we get, even no deal. It'll take years, or more likely decades, to unpick all the areas of mutual recognition that we have built up.
If it works like Norway, we'll get notice of what is intended and the opportunity to raise any objections or make suggestions, although we won't have the right to vote against. If we object so strenuously that we aren't willing to do it, then that segment of the free market is closed off to us (since we will then not be able to guarantee that we're meeting the required standard).
Not ideal (which is why it's worse than staying in). But in practice I don't think there has ever been a case where Norway strenuously objected to any regulation (having exempted fishing in advance), most of which is just standardisation. Why would they? Say the EU wants car tyres to have a stamp showing the year of manufacture, from 2020. You're a tyre manufacturer - do you care enough to shut yourself out of the EU market? You say "yeah, whatever" and have the stamp so you can continue to export.
But what does that mean in more complicated areas?
Any Brexit is technically legitimate, but one which does not convince the public that something is being done on freedom of movement is going to cause a lot of problems.
Brenda from Bristol better be ready to get down the polling station again.
Elections teams across the country are already prepping for another, just in case.
An election caused by Tory party ructions would see them smashed. No short term leader could credibly claim to be able to lead a stable government if the candidates are largely unchanged, and if they are changed there's loads of others who will stand against and split the vote.
Any Brexit is technically legitimate, but one which does not convince the public that something is being done on freedom of movement is going to cause a lot of problems.
To a lot of people “freedom of movement” just means immigration of any kind and they think it means anyone from anywhere can come here. You can’t assuage irrational fears with rational arguments.
Brenda from Bristol better be ready to get down the polling station again.
Elections teams across the country are already prepping for another, just in case.
An election caused by Tory party ructions would see them smashed.
They would lose my vote
And for all JRM and co are very angry, and others may worry May's path will lose them votes (in addition to being a bad idea), they should be wary of people who have stuck up for the party like you not voting for them in that situation.
Having not been following Brexit too closely recently, can someone summarise the current plan for me.
Is it just concede everything to the EU and basically have to do everything that they tell us?
Freedom of movement? Ended. Common Agricultural Policy? Exited. Common Fisheries Policy? Exited. European Court of Justice writ? Exited. Common External Tariff? Exited. EU regulation? Exited for services (85% of the economy, traded globally), maintained for goods (15% of the economy, mainly traded regionally).
For smart Brexiteers (Gove, Raab etc) this is a great deal. For stupid Brexiteers (Boris, Nigel) it is worse than EU membership.
Services are not 85% of trade, they are much, much smaller. Services are much less likely to be imported /exported than goods. You are confusing % of economy with % of international trade.
Any Brexit is technically legitimate, but one which does not convince the public that something is being done on freedom of movement is going to cause a lot of problems.
To a lot of people “freedom of movement” just means immigration of any kind and they think it means anyone from anywhere can come here. You can’t assuage irrational fears with rational arguments.
I didn't mean with arguments, I meant with actions. I don't personally care about freedom of movement, but a lot of people do, even among remain immigration was a concern (though nowhere near as high as with leavers), and that's why if reducing it in the way many people want is neither possible nor a good idea, then whoever is in power, in order to stay in power, needs to find some way of making it look like the issue has been addressed in some fashion if they want to keep going.
The problem is I think the clock has run out on that sort of thing working.
Having not been following Brexit too closely recently, can someone summarise the current plan for me.
Is it just concede everything to the EU and basically have to do everything that they tell us?
Freedom of movement? Ended. Common Agricultural Policy? Exited. Common Fisheries Policy? Exited. European Court of Justice writ? Exited. Common External Tariff? Exited. EU regulation? Exited for services (85% of the economy, traded globally), maintained for goods (15% of the economy, mainly traded regionally).
For smart Brexiteers (Gove, Raab etc) this is a great deal. For stupid Brexiteers (Boris, Nigel) it is worse than EU membership.
Services are not 85% of trade, they are much, much smaller. Services are much less likely to be imported /exported than goods. You are confusing % of economy with % of international trade.
The beneficial effect of trade is not the trade itself, but the impact it has on productivity across the entire sector through increased competition.
Sure But that's not what you said
Do you have any evidence that services trade is more global than goods?
On topic: if you have the numbers, the first we should hear is its announcement. If not, you are looking to gauge support
There seems little doubt the numbers are there to provoke a contest, but without Cabinet resignations signifying a major split among the party grandees winning it seems impossible, so is it all talk, or would the rebels at least want to have a contest to show they fought this path, even if they get behind it afterwards in the name of party loyalty.
It's a private ballot. The cabinet can vote against her. If she loses, she's gone.
Yes they can theoretically vote against her...but on what pretext? They are on record as supporting her deal, even if they initially called it a turd. Are they going to oust her, stand as leader themselves on a platform of repudiating the deal they just agreed to, or back someone else who repudiates the deal they just backed?
If she were to lose we'd know that at least some in the Cabinet must have joined the rebellion, so we'd know even more what idiots they are, too cowardly to resign but then attempting to jump ship when someone else wields the knife.
In a private ballot they can wield the knife and then stand ready to fill the gap as they heave her corpse over the side.
She is replacing freedom of movement with a 'mobility framework.' It is what that 'mobility framework' represents that is key
The JRM crowd have been faster out of the blocks in saying it represents freedom of movement in all but name. That some remainers have said the same thing means, I think, that that interpretation will win out. That's a problem for May and co - they need a win on this, but their solution will probably be seen as not one at all. That the EU could only agree if it is FOM in all but name won't help May sell it either.
Brenda from Bristol better be ready to get down the polling station again.
Elections teams across the country are already prepping for another, just in case.
An election caused by Tory party ructions would see them smashed.
They would lose my vote
And for all JRM and co are very angry, and others may worry May's path will lose them votes (in addition to being a bad idea), they should be wary of people who have stuck up for the party like you not voting for them in that situation.
I would only vote for a non Brexiteer candidate and to be fair I would vote for Guto Bebb, our MP, who is furious with the disregard Boris has shown to Airbus, a huge employer in our area
Having not been following Brexit too closely recently, can someone summarise the current plan for me.
Is it just concede everything to the EU and basically have to do everything that they tell us?
Freedom of movement? Ended. Common Agricultural Policy? Exited. Common Fisheries Policy? Exited. European Court of Justice writ? Exited. Common External Tariff? Exited. EU regulation? Exited for services (85% of the economy, traded globally), maintained for goods (15% of the economy, mainly traded regionally).
For smart Brexiteers (Gove, Raab etc) this is a great deal. For stupid Brexiteers (Boris, Nigel) it is worse than EU membership.
Services are not 85% of trade, they are much, much smaller. Services are much less likely to be imported /exported than goods. You are confusing % of economy with % of international trade.
ON topic, England are in the semi final of the World Cup, the sun has been shining on Primrose Hill for about six week, I'm drinking a VERY fine Meursault, and tomorrow I fly to Annecy - as Ye Official Times Luxury Travel Correspondent - to stay in three of the best gastronomic hotels in the French Alps, including Perebise
and - I nearly forgot to mention - I just tupped my adorable 22 year old wife, twice, without taking off my Crockett and Jones.
Fuck Brexit. Fuck Politics, Life just PEAKED. It's all downhill from here. Let's hope it's a slalom
You really should stop downplaying your life and tell us how it really is...how do you manage the dishes rota, what about the weekly shop (I hear the Waitrose in Camden is closing down, which must be a bit of shitter)...when do you fit in the ironing?
She is replacing freedom of movement with a 'mobility framework.' It is what that 'mobility framework' represents that is key
It's a tough sell. The Conservatives have tried to ride the two horses of convincing the public that they want to reduce immigration while convincing business they understand the importance of continued immigration in an economy fairly close to full employment. Having a numerical migration target (easy to understand) while facing to use various powers at their disposal to reduce immigration and deport people without the right to be here (difficult to understand, easy to obfuscate, therefore less salient) kind of worked as an electoral strategy. The problem now is that "ending free movement under EU rules" is quite easy to understand and difficult to fudge. Essentially it's moved the Tories to the position of having to convince the electorate that something complicated and difficult to explain is the thing that the electorate wants - which, as Rentoul's voicemail shows, is tricky.
On topic: if you have the numbers, the first we should hear is its announcement. If not, you are looking to gauge support
There seems little doubt the numbers are there to provoke a contest, but without Cabinet resignations signifying a major split among the party grandees winning it seems impossible, so is it all talk, or would the rebels at least want to have a contest to show they fought this path, even if they get behind it afterwards in the name of party loyalty.
It's a private ballot. The cabinet can vote against her. If she loses, she's gone.
Yes they can theoretically vote against her...but on what pretext? They are on record as supporting her deal, even if they initially called it a turd. Are they going to oust her, stand as leader themselves on a platform of repudiating the deal they just agreed to, or back someone else who repudiates the deal they just backed?
If she were to lose we'd know that at least some in the Cabinet must have joined the rebellion, so we'd know even more what idiots they are, too cowardly to resign but then attempting to jump ship when someone else wields the knife.
In a private ballot they can wield the knife and then stand ready to fill the gap as they heave her corpse over the side.
And say what? 'I, too, stand up for May's deal'? If they do they won't be leader. If they vote in a person who backed the deal the problems aren't fixed as the fight will go on and on. If they vote in a new leader who backs a new position you'll probably find just as many pushing back, or at least enough to paralyse the new person as much as May has been.
The problem with the party is not a few bad apples. The problem appears to be the orchard.
Comments
Even Bridgen, an arch-Brexiteer, isn’t definitely going to send his letter in.
I think your last sentence reveals you are not a conservative so clearly do not understand how the leader is elected
I'm calling that Survation subsample for what it is, utter bollocks.
Though that may not include views through other media, such as Facebook.
We get told Muslims must integrate and well when we do, we get this.
https://twitter.com/AMDWaters/status/1015479292984164352
The closest is on there being a Tory leadership contest in 2018.
Yes 2/1
No 1/3
https://www.paddypower.com/politics/uk-party-leaders
His current shtick is that the EU is a creation of Nazi Germany & 'Treason' May is a traitor.
Survation's final 2017 subsample for Scotland had the SNP on 41%, the Tories on 25% and Labour on 29%. Even if they overestimated Labour a bit and underestimated the Tories they also overestimated the SNP a bit too. It was not far from the final result of SNP 37%, Tories 29%, Labour 27%
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Survation-GE2017-Final-Poll-2d7l9l8.pdf
Their final poll of the last general election which got the result so close, their Scottish subsample had the SNP ahead, Labour in second, and the Tories third.
The Templin Institute recently released a video on the Dalek Empire
It has 67353 views in 5 days, a rate of over 500 views per hour.
Just saying.
UKIP. 80% less popular than Davros.
However I thought you were a bit harsh on Sterling.His speed really frightens opponents ,and I thought he had a decent game against Sweden apart from the final finish.Which I hope will happen .As is did last season for Man City.
So I do agree with Gary Neville .
http://www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11095/11429283/gary-neville-raheem-sterling-was-brilliant-and-half-time-criticism-was-disgusting
However, let's not over criticise, the team are in the semis with a good chance of the final. And if that chance falls to Sterling I hope he takes it
This.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1016024603481853952
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1016026249741860864
People getting mouthy about how fantastic some players are and how dreadful others are are simply victims of internet hyperbole.
No, Theresa May could easily lose.
We'll know if I am wrong tomorrow when the CCHQ and Number 10 spin will stay as it is now: bring it on; crush the saboteurs. But if May's team reads pb and thinks I am right, the spin will change drastically: no time for distractions at such a crucial stage of Brexit negotiations.
That will be the white smoke.
It is also important that the reciprocal situation exists to. If we raise our standards in animal welfare or whatever, the EU should decide whether to accept that or lose trade access.
Not ideal (which is why it's worse than staying in). But in practice I don't think there has ever been a case where Norway strenuously objected to any regulation (having exempted fishing in advance), most of which is just standardisation. Why would they? Say the EU wants car tyres to have a stamp showing the year of manufacture, from 2020. You're a tyre manufacturer - do you care enough to shut yourself out of the EU market? You say "yeah, whatever" and have the stamp so you can continue to export.
If she were to lose we'd know that at least some in the Cabinet must have joined the rebellion, so we'd know even more what idiots they are, too cowardly to resign but then attempting to jump ship when someone else wields the knife.
Or should he? For me, he is England's best chance of developing goal chances other than from set-pieces but it is disappointing how often there is no-one in the box to receive his pass and tap it in.
I would still like to know what he had on Murdoch that enabled him to stay as Economics Editor of the Times for more than 15 minutes.
I assume the May line will be "none of us think the backstop agreement is acceptable, but with these new proposals we can accept it because it will never happen." This is obviously a problem because the only way it will never happen is if Parliament never rejects a new EU rule. Not sure how that discussion will be dealt with.
I'm loving that username. I regret all the time I didn't given any thought to a good moniker.
An election caused by Tory party ructions would see them smashed. No short term leader could credibly claim to be able to lead a stable government if the candidates are largely unchanged, and if they are changed there's loads of others who will stand against and split the vote.
Services is $550m.
See: https://data.oecd.org/trade/trade-in-services.htm#indicator-chart
The problem is I think the clock has run out on that sort of thing working.
Do you have any evidence that services trade is more global than goods?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUMBycsfo6E
The problem with the party is not a few bad apples. The problem appears to be the orchard.