Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » No Deal or No government: the pincers close on May

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited December 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » No Deal or No government: the pincers close on May

Not only is Theresa May a bloody difficult woman, she’s also a bloody difficult woman to shift. The ERG, with all their customary Keystone Cops planning, proved once again this week that when it comes to continuing her mission, the PM has a Terminator-like resilience to her and that it takes rather more than saying nasty things in posh voices to blow her off course.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,831
    First. Insomnia rules!
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 3,881
    Second.

    No insomnia, afternoon here😁
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,075
    Thanks for the articles, I share your conclusions.
  • As ever it's a sophisticated and eloquent piece which sets out the issues carefully and diligently. But I think it has a Tory activists bias in that, because A50 revocation would be the Tories Ragnarok, it has to be rhetorically excluded. But why ? The CJEU has said we can revoke A50 and we can ram an Act through parliament in 24 hrs. That doesn't mean that we should do that or that we will or that doing so wouldn't trigger fresh chaos. But we coukd. So any argument that it will come down to no deal or a choice between no deal and X has to now address why we wouldn't revoke. I'm not convinced the signifigance of tge CJEU ruling has filtered into the PB house bubble yet.
  • Yellow submarine has pipped my point about A50...I suspect an extension will be fothcoming in the typical last minute shenanigans that have marked UK-EU relations. The running down of the clock is inexcusable by May and I wonder whether an enforced retirement on health grounds (she appears shattered in my opinion) is the best option for all..? That however does not solve the question of her successor.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 10,371
    edited December 2018
    I think this is too pessimistic about TMay's options. She's still polling as well as or better than every alternative Tory, and way ahead of the opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn. If she gets forced into a new election, there's a decent chance that she'd actually win it. However, she needs to avoid the economy getting blown up in the meantime, so she needs to avoid no-deal.

    To avoid no-deal, she needs to get the votes for her deal in parliament. We know at least one way she can do this: TMay and SNP+LD+Lab-Remain agree on a binding Deal vs Remain Referendum. You can use the same electorate and the same rules as last time. She'd get an extension for this, so it's OK if her government falls and she fights a general election as well: Like I say, she may well win it. There may be other ways, but this is the obvious one.

    How does her position look after the referendum?

    If her deal wins, she's vindicated. The voters backed her policy. She just carries on.

    If Remain wins, potentially some of the ERG ultras break off to UKIPv2, which brings her even closer to the centre of gravity of what's left of the Conservative Party. Somebody could try to challenge her, but from which end? The anti-EU end just got definitively rejected by the voters. The pro-EU end leave the anti-EU end spitting even more feathers than TMay does. She's still Prime Minister, the economy suddenly gets a much-needed surge, the voters are sick of talking about Brexit, and she wants to talk about something else like grammar schools or vast dystopian surveillance systems. So she just carries on.
  • fox327fox327 Posts: 13
    edited December 2018
    The seasonal break is going to seem longer than normal this year. People wearing novelty Christmas jumpers at office parties may forget about Brexit briefly, but after Boxing Day there will be plenty of time to mull over the options for MPs.

    The 2016 referendum gives a mandate for Brexit. However David Cameron gave a commitment that the result would be implemented, implying that he would negotiate an agreement with the EU. Some leave campaigners also said that an agreement with the EU would be easy to reach. Many people who voted for leave therefore did not expect a no deal Brexit.

    Therefore how can MPs allow a no deal Brexit unless a second referendum has given confirmation that this is the wish of the British people?
  • fox327 said:

    The seasonal break is going to seem longer than normal this year. People wearing novelty Christmas jumpers at office parties may forget about Brexit briefly, but after Boxing Day there will be plenty of time to mull over the options for MPs.

    The 2016 gives a mandate for Brexit. However David Cameron gave a commitment that the result would be implemented, implying that he would negotiate an agreement with the EU. Some leave campaigners also said that an agreement with the EU would be easy to reach. Many people who voted for leave therefore did not expect a no deal Brexit.

    Therefore how can MPs allow a no deal Brexit unless a second referendum has given confirmation that this is the wish of the British people?

    And the Government will have to choose no deal. Because if it gets to March 1st then the Lords will pass a Revocation Bill and the SNP/PC/LD/GRN bloc will present one in the Commons. Now the government asn kill both easily by procedural means in the Commons by simply denying them time. But the government will have to *choose* to do so. The CJEU ruling means no deal is now only the technical default. De facto the government will have to choose to do it. And choose to do it when neither the 2016 referendum or the 2017 General Election result can credibly be said to offer a mandate to do so.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 649
    edited December 2018

    I think this is too pessimistic about TMay's options. She's still polling as well as or better than every alternative Tory, and way ahead of the opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn. If she gets forced into a new election, there's a decent chance that she'd actually win it. However, she needs to avoid the economy getting blown up in the meantime, so she needs to avoid no-deal.

    To avoid no-deal, she needs to get the votes for her deal in parliament. We know at least one way she can do this: TMay and SNP+LD+Lab-Remain agree on a binding Deal vs Remain Referendum. You can use the same electorate and the same rules as last time. She'd get an extension for this, so it's OK if her government falls and she fights a general election as well: Like I say, she may well win it. There may be other ways, but this is the obvious one.

    How does her position look after the referendum?

    If her deal wins, she's vindicated. The voters backed her policy. She just carries on.

    If Remain wins, potentially some of the ERG ultras break off to UKIPv2, which brings her even closer to the centre of gravity of what's left of the Conservative Party. Somebody could try to challenge her, but from which end? The anti-EU end just got definitively rejected by the voters. The pro-EU end leave the anti-EU end spitting even more feathers than TMay does. She's still Prime Minister, the economy suddenly gets a much-needed surge, the voters are sick of talking about Brexit, and she wants to talk about something else like grammar schools or vast dystopian surveillance systems. So she just carries on.

    " TMay and SNP+LD+Lab-Remain agree"

    Know many tory members do you? That might pass a focus group comprising Amber Rudd and her brother. Limited appeal elsewhere.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 10,371
    edited December 2018
    shiney2 said:


    If her deal wins, she's vindicated. The voters backed her
    " TMay and SNP+LD+Lab-Remain agree"

    Know many tory members do you? That might pass a focus group comprising Amber Rudd and her brother. Limited appeal elsewhere.

    Nobody's suggesting giving Tory members a vote on the idea. But you're right that they won't like it, so let's see how their opposition makes a difference at each stage.

    1) A minority of Tory MPs could no-confidence the government as soon as she suggests it. They lose the whip. She asks for (and gets) an Article 50 extension, then runs for election as the person trying to stop everything falling apart. Not optimal circumstances to fight an election, but the opposition is Jeremy Corbyn. And she may even be able to get some abstentions from opposition MPs to keep the show on the road.

    2) Tory MPs replace her as leader as soon as she suggests it. First they need to openly change the rules to refight the election they just lost, then they need to win the election. But the clock is still ticking, and the non-bonkers ones know that have no better strategy: Their replacement candidate can't renegotiate or pass the deal either, so... what then?

    3) Too many Tory MPs vote against the Deal+Referendum package to pass it. This is the hardest part. But *most* of Labour will like this idea, and the SNP/LD and most of misc will like it. And again, non-bonkers Tory MPs know what the alternative is, and it isn't good.

    4) The Deal wins the referendum, then Tory MPs move on her. They might, but they plan to do this already. She's bought herself several months, and a personal victory. There will be a lot less moaning about the second referendum from the Leave side if it was won by the Leave side.

    5) Remain wins the referendum, then Tory MPs move on her. Again, they might; There will be a sizable part of the party that really, really has it in for her. But her opponents are demonstrably out-of-step with the voters, the angriest ones will have actually left the party, and, as we saw from the attempts on her to date, they're as dumb as a bag of hammers.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 10,597
    just seen the MORI leadeership polls on the previous thread. The most unpopular leaders ever just when we need leadership. if Corbyn would stand down we could have a Labour government with a '97 type majority and someone with the authority to fix the Brexit nightmare. The sight of IDS Davis and J R-M telling us what the public voted for is becoming unbearable.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 649

    shiney2 said:


    If her deal wins, she's vindicated. The voters backed her
    " TMay and SNP+LD+Lab-Remain agree"

    Know many tory members do you? That might pass a focus group comprising Amber Rudd and her brother. Limited appeal elsewhere.

    Nobody's suggesting giving Tory members a vote on the idea. But you're right that they won't like it, so let's see how their opposition makes a difference at each stage.

    1) A minority of Tory MPs could no-confidence the government as soon as she suggests it. They lose the whip. She asks for (and gets) an Article 50 extension, then runs for election as the person trying to stop everything falling apart. Not optimal circumstances to fight an election, but the opposition is Jeremy Corbyn. And she may even be able to get some abstentions from opposition MPs to keep the show on the road.

    2) Tory MPs replace her as leader as soon as she suggests it. First they need to openly change the rules to refight the election they just lost, then they need to win the election. But the clock is still ticking, and the non-bonkers ones know that have no better strategy: Their replacement candidate can't renegotiate or pass the deal either, so... what then?

    3) Too many Tory MPs vote against the Deal+Referendum package to pass it. This is the hardest part. But *most* of Labour will like this idea, and the SNP/LD and most of misc will like it. And again, non-bonkers Tory MPs know what the alternative is, and it isn't good.

    4) The Deal wins the referendum, then Tory MPs move on her. They might, but they plan to do this already. She's bought herself several months, and a personal victory. There will be a lot less moaning about the second referendum from the Leave side if it was won by the Leave side.

    5) Remain wins the referendum, then Tory MPs move on her. Again, they might; There will be a sizable part of the party that really, really has it in for her. But her opponents are demonstrably out-of-step with the voters, the angriest ones will have actually left the party, and, as we saw from the attempts on her to date, they're as dumb as a bag of hammers.
    The Conservative Party is, on the surface, a rules based organisation. It is also at heart an 'organised hypocrisy' (?disraeli ?hague i forget). Examples from this week are the re-whipping of two suspended un-exonerated MPs - needed the votes, mate.

    The Rules for the replacement of MrsMay will, I predict, be adjusted as necessary. When /if she does "SNP+LD+Lab-Remain agree", to publically ditch the one view supported by ~80% of Tory members, she'll be instant toast.
  • shiney2 said:


    The Conservative Party is, on the surface, a rules based organisation. It is also at heart an 'organised hypocrisy' (?disraeli ?hague i forget). Examples from this week are the re-whipping of two suspended un-exonerated MPs - needed the votes, mate.

    The Rules for the replacement of MrsMay will, I predict, be adjusted as necessary. When /if she does "SNP+LD+Lab-Remain agree", to publically ditch the one view supported by ~80% of Tory members, she'll be instant toast.

    "Be adjusted" by who? The rules controlled by the MPs. Apart from the 20%-odd fringe that want No Deal, the MPs know that they need a plan, and nobody has a better one.

    It's true that when they want to do something the members hate they need cover, but they have cover: The rules say they can't get rid of her. And if they changed the rules, they have more cover, in the form of a secret ballot.

    PS If Tory members were as powerful as you think, how did John Major manage to stay in office long enough to get the Maastricht Treaty through?
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 649
    edited December 2018

    shiney2 said:


    The Conservative Party is, on the surface, a rules based organisation. It is also at heart an 'organised hypocrisy' (?disraeli ?hague i forget). Examples from this week are the re-whipping of two suspended un-exonerated MPs - needed the votes, mate.

    The Rules for the replacement of MrsMay will, I predict, be adjusted as necessary. When /if she does "SNP+LD+Lab-Remain agree", to publically ditch the one view supported by ~80% of Tory members, she'll be instant toast.

    "Be adjusted" by who? The rules controlled by the MPs. Apart from the 20%-odd fringe that want No Deal, the MPs know that they need a plan, and nobody has a better one.

    It's true that when they want to do something the members hate they need cover, but they have cover: The rules say they can't get rid of her. And if they changed the rules, they have more cover, in the form of a secret ballot.

    PS If Tory members were as powerful as you think, how did John Major manage to stay in office long enough to get the Maastricht Treaty through?
    Most MPs know they need a job. As we have seen the concept of ministerial resignation on principle is almost gone (excepting Brexit &Crouch). Seat resignation is gone except as a quixotic response. They aren't voting for deselection or the destruction of the tory party or anything else on the whim of some lefties.

    As for Rules adjustment. The 22/PartyBrd decides after 'soundings' - formal or otherwise. If MrsMay goes berserk and attempts to dynamite the Tory party in the 'national interest' she's had it.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,846
    To proceed, we need that vote on the deal.
  • shiney2 said:


    Most MPs know they need a job. As we have seen the concept of ministerial resignation on principle is almost gone (excepting Brexit &Crouch). Seat resignation is gone except as a quixotic response. They aren't voting for deselection or the destruction of the tory party or anything else on the whim of some lefties.

    As for Rules adjustment. The 22 decides after 'soundings' - formal or otherwise. If MrsMay goes berserk and attempts to dynamite the Tory party in the 'national interest' she's had it.

    So the way you're imagining this thing, what is the alternative plan that the 1922 Committee, and then the MPs who would vote in the newly-legalized ballot, would have in mind after they'd disposed of their Prime Minister? Same deal, same EU, same deadline, same MPs, so what's the move?
  • Jonathan said:

    To proceed, we need that vote on the deal.

    I don't think that's really true. The vote is neither necessary nor sufficient. Parliament can't do anything without at least the tacit support of the PM, and the PM has quite limited options without the support of parliament. Arguably the ritual humiliation would help clear the field for the alternatives, but if everybody already knows what the outcome would be, the field is already clear.

    The players all know each other, they're all on What's App, they just need to get on with the haggling.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 649

    shiney2 said:


    Most MPs know they need a job. As we have seen the concept of ministerial resignation on principle is almost gone (excepting Brexit &Crouch). Seat resignation is gone except as a quixotic response. They aren't voting for deselection or the destruction of the tory party or anything else on the whim of some lefties.

    As for Rules adjustment. The 22 decides after 'soundings' - formal or otherwise. If MrsMay goes berserk and attempts to dynamite the Tory party in the 'national interest' she's had it.

    So the way you're imagining this thing, what is the alternative plan that the 1922 Committee, and then the MPs who would vote in the newly-legalized ballot, would have in mind after they'd disposed of their Prime Minister? Same deal, same EU, same deadline, same MPs, so what's the move?
    The same one that portillo explained months ago: she stays until its over & takes all the blame. If she goes loco in the interim, then 'ill health retirement' and Lidington or some other ultraremainer takes over for a while.
  • shiney2 said:

    shiney2 said:


    Most MPs know they need a job. As we have seen the concept of ministerial resignation on principle is almost gone (excepting Brexit &Crouch). Seat resignation is gone except as a quixotic response. They aren't voting for deselection or the destruction of the tory party or anything else on the whim of some lefties.

    As for Rules adjustment. The 22 decides after 'soundings' - formal or otherwise. If MrsMay goes berserk and attempts to dynamite the Tory party in the 'national interest' she's had it.

    So the way you're imagining this thing, what is the alternative plan that the 1922 Committee, and then the MPs who would vote in the newly-legalized ballot, would have in mind after they'd disposed of their Prime Minister? Same deal, same EU, same deadline, same MPs, so what's the move?
    The same one that portillo explained months ago: she stays until its over & takes all the blame. If she goes loco in the interim, then 'ill health retirement' and Lidington or some other ultraremainer takes over for a while.
    Takes the blame for No Deal? The blame for No Deal won't stop when they replace her with a new Prime Minister. The Tories just blew up the economy. It doesn't get un-blown-up when you replace the Prime Minister.

    Where sacrificial-lamb blame-shifting does work is if the outcome is OK, but the *process* is unpopular. Like... well, cutting a deal with the opposition to get what you want via a referendum that your members hate.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 10,371
    edited December 2018
    OT CNN Dem poll, interesting that they have numbers before and after the mid-terms. Losing didn't hurt Beto, apparently...

    Biden still well ahead. I know there's name recognition but this is a big number. Bernie still a bit meh, miscellaneous liberals (Warren, Harris) getting squeezed, support looks like it's going to Beto.

    Raw numbers here, I stopped copy-pasting at KLOBUCHAR who has SURGED 300%.

    Candidate Dec. 6-9, 2018 (Oct. 4-7, 2018)
    Former Vice President Joe Biden 30% (33%)
    Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders 14% (13%)
    Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke 9% (4%)
    New Jersey Senator Cory Booker 5% (5%)
    California Senator Kamala Harris 4% (9%)
    Former Secretary of State John Kerry 4% (5%)
    Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren 3% (8%)
    Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg 3% (4%)
    Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar 3% (1%)

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/14/politics/cnn-poll-2020-democrats-beto-orourke-rising/index.html
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,846

    Jonathan said:

    To proceed, we need that vote on the deal.

    I don't think that's really true. The vote is neither necessary nor sufficient. Parliament can't do anything without at least the tacit support of the PM, and the PM has quite limited options without the support of parliament. Arguably the ritual humiliation would help clear the field for the alternatives, but if everybody already knows what the outcome would be, the field is already clear.

    The players all know each other, they're all on What's App, they just need to get on with the haggling.
    We need to purge the current atmosphere of distrust and nudge May into adopting a new position. The deal needs to be seen to have lost in its current form and May needs to not be seen as playing games or trying to put her needs first.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 649

    shiney2 said:

    shiney2 said:


    Most MPs know they need a job. As we have seen the concept of ministerial resignation on principle is almost gone (excepting Brexit &Crouch). Seat resignation is gone except as a quixotic response. They aren't voting for deselection or the destruction of the tory party or anything else on the whim of some lefties.

    As for Rules adjustment. The 22 decides after 'soundings' - formal or otherwise. If MrsMay goes berserk and attempts to dynamite the Tory party in the 'national interest' she's had it.

    So the way you're imagining this thing, what is the alternative plan that the 1922 Committee, and then the MPs who would vote in the newly-legalized ballot, would have in mind after they'd disposed of their Prime Minister? Same deal, same EU, same deadline, same MPs, so what's the move?
    The same one that portillo explained months ago: she stays until its over & takes all the blame. If she goes loco in the interim, then 'ill health retirement' and Lidington or some other ultraremainer takes over for a while.
    Takes the blame for No Deal? The blame for No Deal won't stop when they replace her with a new Prime Minister. The Tories just blew up the economy. It doesn't get un-blown-up when you replace the Prime Minister.

    Where sacrificial-lamb blame-shifting does work is if the outcome is OK, but the *process* is unpopular. Like... well, cutting a deal with the opposition to get what you want via a referendum that your members hate.
    Nobody actually believes treasury forecasts, least of all the Cabinet. No Deal Brexit is quite likely to be indistinguishable from any other 3-4year period. Obviously any initial dislocation will be hyped by partisans but the papers will soon be full of something else.
  • shiney2 said:


    Nobody actually believes treasury forecasts, least of all the Cabinet. No Deal Brexit is quite likely to be indistinguishable from any other 3-4year period. Obviously any initial dislocation will be hyped by partisans but the papers will soon be full of something else.

    Believe that if you like but don't assume the MPs who just reelected TMay do.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 10,597
    The unpopularity of the two main party leaders is quite extraordinary. Even when MPs were dabbling in duck ponds and charging their 2nd 3rd and 4th houses on expenses they weren't held in such contempt as now.

    It's time for someone to do a Macron and capture the country's imagination. Another Blair if you prefer. It could happen. An MP with charisma saying something different. The Brexiteers are international Pariahs. Witness Farage yesterday. They're repulsing people who haven't taken an interest in politics their whole lives. I can't remember a time when more non political people have wanted to vent their spleen about what's going on.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    As ever it's a sophisticated and eloquent piece which sets out the issues carefully and diligently. But I think it has a Tory activists bias in that, because A50 revocation would be the Tories Ragnarok, it has to be rhetorically excluded. But why ? The CJEU has said we can revoke A50 and we can ram an Act through parliament in 24 hrs. That doesn't mean that we should do that or that we will or that doing so wouldn't trigger fresh chaos. But we coukd. So any argument that it will come down to no deal or a choice between no deal and X has to now address why we wouldn't revoke. I'm not convinced the signifigance of tge CJEU ruling has filtered into the PB house bubble yet.

    i completely agree with this. when the only remaining option is staring is staring down the barrel of the No Deal gun, minds will be concentrated.

    David also ignores the leverage exerted by businesses. They will not wait for the politicians to make their mind up. policy does not happen in a vacuum
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,593
    @JosiasJessop

    I was thinking of your comment on Brunel being a great civil engineer and a disastrous mechanical engineer when I made my reference to Vaughan. That was one of his earlier theories. More recently I believe he's become obsessed with the idea Brunel was just a terrible engineer.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,593
    edited December 2018

    i completely agree with this. when the only remaining option is staring is staring down the barrel of the No Deal gun, minds will be concentrated.

    David also ignores the leverage exerted by businesses. They will not wait for the politicians to make their mind up. policy does not happen in a vacuum

    This post does rather presuppose however that the current lot of politicians have minds.

    May I ask what evidence you have for this supposition?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,593
    Meanwhile, out in the real world, this would appear to be rather significant and potentially disastrous:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46577152
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 2,733
    edited December 2018

    As ever it's a sophisticated and eloquent piece which sets out the issues carefully and diligently. But I think it has a Tory activists bias in that, because A50 revocation would be the Tories Ragnarok, it has to be rhetorically excluded. But why ? The CJEU has said we can revoke A50 and we can ram an Act through parliament in 24 hrs. That doesn't mean that we should do that or that we will or that doing so wouldn't trigger fresh chaos. But we coukd. So any argument that it will come down to no deal or a choice between no deal and X has to now address why we wouldn't revoke. I'm not convinced the signifigance of tge CJEU ruling has filtered into the PB house bubble yet.

    The EU have also said they would give an extension in the case of a referendum so if time gets really short and we wanted to either hold a referendum on the deal or revoke article 50 then the EU would help that happen if time was an issue. The only way to no deal is if it is chosen over a referendum or revocation even once we are into the final days.

    Good article as ever though, from David and PB in general.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,714
    Chris Deerin taking a strong hit off the pipe before writing a column

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/12/scottish-tories-are-preparing-back-second-brexit-referendum

    Just astounding nonsense from top to bottom.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 7,098
    No Deal is not only the default, it is the preferred outcome of many people and MPs, albeit many of them ill informed.

    Labour are not going to back May's Deal, and solidarity is very tight. Even people like Liz Kendall are sticking strongly to the line.

    May is insufficiently flexible to change couse, by either A50 revocation or a #peoplesvote, and is not going to be defenestrated.

    Buckle up.

    In practice No Deal means the lack of enforcement of our own laws, both for practical and for logistic reasons. It is anarchy and I wouldn't expect it to last. I thinkbit likely that the WA would be signed off afterwards within weeks.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,593
    Foxy said:

    No Deal is not only the default, it is the preferred outcome of many people and MPs, albeit many of them ill informed.

    Labour are not going to back May's Deal, and solidarity is very tight. Even people like Liz Kendall are sticking strongly to the line.

    May is insufficiently flexible to change couse, by either A50 revocation or a #peoplesvote, and is not going to be defenestrated.

    Buckle up.

    In practice No Deal means the lack of enforcement of our own laws, both for practical and for logistic reasons. It is anarchy and I wouldn't expect it to last. I thinkbit likely that the WA would be signed off afterwards within weeks.

    I think we'd be willing to sign it at last under those circumstances. Whether the EU would leave it on the table is a rather different question.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,846
    Is it possible to stop the PM hlding the nation to ransom by running down the clock?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,814
    Foxy said:

    No Deal is not only the default, it is the preferred outcome of many people and MPs, albeit many of them ill informed.

    Labour are not going to back May's Deal, and solidarity is very tight. Even people like Liz Kendall are sticking strongly to the line.

    May is insufficiently flexible to change couse, by either A50 revocation or a #peoplesvote, and is not going to be defenestrated.

    Buckle up.

    In practice No Deal means the lack of enforcement of our own laws, both for practical and for logistic reasons. It is anarchy and I wouldn't expect it to last. I thinkbit likely that the WA would be signed off afterwards within weeks.

    It's hard to see credibility in our politicians sinking any lower. But if they use up all the remaining time arguing about why they can't sign the deal, we have a few weeks of chaos stories in the press, and then MPs sign up to the same deal - well, that might just do it. Remember that Black Wednesday tarnished the Tories for a decade, despite the crisis stories only running for a few days after which everything returned to normal.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,814
    edited December 2018
    Jonathan said:

    Is it possible to stop the PM hlding the nation to ransom by running down the clock?

    If she absolutely refused any other course, she could deny government support to any of the potential routes out of the crisis. The resolution would have to be removing the government by forming a new one with a majority (which might be the problem!) to do a single job. That could be done in a few days, plus some days more to produce and pass the necessary legislation. That legislation would have to be as simple as possible, which would mean abandoning A50 and repealing the withdrawal act.

    Edit/ Having Bercow in position might just turn out to be key.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 43,382
    Jonathan said:

    Is it possible to stop the PM hlding the nation to ransom by running down the clock?

    VONC the government
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,814
    Scott_P said:
    There must however be big emotional pressure on MPs to remain in limbo while they enjoy Christmas and then get stuck in early in the New Year. Taking an initiative now could backfire.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    Rather cold outside. Glad it hasn't rained (yet). The freezing rain forecast sounds quite unpleasant.

    Good, if depressing, article, Mr. Herdson.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,593
    Scott_P said:

    Jonathan said:

    Is it possible to stop the PM hlding the nation to ransom by running down the clock?

    VONC the government
    So the answer's no?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,814

    Good morning, everyone.

    Rather cold outside. Glad it hasn't rained (yet). The freezing rain forecast sounds quite unpleasant.

    Good, if depressing, article, Mr. Herdson.

    Cold wet and windy already in the south
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,846
    Matthew Paris makes an interesting proposal, do not whips the MV to enable more consensus to emerge. Saves May some blushes.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,814
    edited December 2018
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_P said:

    Jonathan said:

    Is it possible to stop the PM hlding the nation to ransom by running down the clock?

    VONC the government
    So the answer's no?
    It wouldn't take long to organise and carry through a no confidence vote. And the hard Brexit lot don't have any confidence either, so it should be easy to carry.

    The difficult bit is assembling a consensus on what to do thereafter, from a bloc of MPs that would be a rainbow with people from pretty much every party. I just hope that the few clever ones like Grieve and Benn are closeted in a back room somewhere plotting out all the detail. The initiative does however need a lot more followers than leaders, and the trouble with politicians is that even the stupid ones think their opinion and input is somehow critical. They'll need to be up against the wire to get the sheep through the gate.
  • Foxy said:

    . I thinkbit likely that the WA would be signed off afterwards within weeks.

    The UK can sign at that point but it's already left, so I don't think it would benefit from the streamlined procedure (just Council of Ministers by QMV + EP, no ratification by member states) that the WA benefits from on the EU side. It could take a while, and the UK might end up needing to tack on extra concessions for other member states to get through their parliaments. (UK troops on the Estonia-Russia border, Spain gets Gibraltar etc)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,831
    ydoethur said:

    @JosiasJessop

    I was thinking of your comment on Brunel being a great civil engineer and a disastrous mechanical engineer when I made my reference to Vaughan. That was one of his earlier theories. More recently I believe he's become obsessed with the idea Brunel was just a terrible engineer.

    Ah thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

    There seems little controversy about the fact he was a terrible mechanical engineer - and Gooch was hired to replace him in that role. The two men got on famously, which says much positive about Brunel - many great men would have hated being pushed out of such a role.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotives_of_the_Great_Western_Railway#Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel_(1835_-_1837)

    As for being a terrible engineer: he was not as popular at the time of his death as he was now, and some of his obituaries were rather negative. I'd never call him a 'terrible' engineer, but he did have a habit of pushing the limits too much, of preferring the new to the tested.

    Take his ships: the Great Western was novel and an outstanding success in service. If he had built three or four of these, put them in service, then the profits would have helped build other designs. Instead he only built one, and moved straight onto the much larger Great Britain. This was a technical tour de force, but they could only afford to build one for the price of several Great Westerns, and when it ran aground the company had little revenue and went bust.

    He never learned that lesson, and went onto the disastrous (though marvellous) Great Eastern - the largest ship that would exist for fifty years.

    He could have died one of the richest men in Britain, having set up a series of companies that would have lasted decades. Instead he ended up rather poor (his family had to sell most of his paintings), and lots of people lost their shirts investing in his projects.

    Including John Scott Russell, who was another fascinating scientist and man of the period. Whilst Brunel has many things named after him, including a university, Russell has just a modern aqueduct outside Edinburgh. This shows how important it is for your descendents to promote your legacy - something Brunel's children were excellent at.
  • A good piece, don't agree with all of it but food for thought.

    So:
    1. A growing push across the House to vote the deal to death this year. The deal is dead and with it May's final vestige of power and authority. She can't blackmail MPs to vote for her deal by running down the clock if her deal has already been killed
    2. There is a consensus in the House that No Deal would be a Bad Thing. Constitutionally we're in known waters when there is a government in office that MPs refuse to either support on policy or remove with a short fuse burning towards an economic bomb going off.
    3. There are Ways and Means for MPs to work around an obstructionist government refusing to act. Legislation does not have to come from ministers. Binding motions do not have to come from ministers. The government can act in contempt of the House and whilst we haven't seen action yet from the first one if it does so again you can imagine what will happen
    4. With the deal deal the remaining options are no deal crash Brexit or revoke A50. The majority says the former is a Bad Thing which leaves the latter however unpalatable many MPs will find it

    Never mind the Brexit fiasco, there is another growing fiasco in the Conservative Party. The party of government led by a Prime Minister unable and unwilling to act at a time of national crisis brought about personally by the Prime Minister. Whose MPs do not want her to lead them but who refuse to remove her. Parking their party in office whilst it refuses to do anything at all "because Corbyn". Whilst holding everyone hostage to a financial event which they know would be catastrophic.

    I don't think Tory MPs are thinking straight. If their plan is to destroy the reputation of the party then they are playing a blinder...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,814

    ydoethur said:

    @JosiasJessop

    I was thinking of your comment on Brunel being a great civil engineer and a disastrous mechanical engineer when I made my reference to Vaughan. That was one of his earlier theories. More recently I believe he's become obsessed with the idea Brunel was just a terrible engineer.

    Ah thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

    There seems little controversy about the fact he was a terrible mechanical engineer - and Gooch was hired to replace him in that role. The two men got on famously, which says much positive about Brunel - many great men would have hated being pushed out of such a role.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotives_of_the_Great_Western_Railway#Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel_(1835_-_1837)

    As for being a terrible engineer: he was not as popular at the time of his death as he was now, and some of his obituaries were rather negative. I'd never call him a 'terrible' engineer, but he did have a habit of pushing the limits too much, of preferring the new to the tested.

    Take his ships: the Great Western was novel and an outstanding success in service. If he had built three or four of these, put them in service, then the profits would have helped build other designs. Instead he only built one, and moved straight onto the much larger Great Britain. This was a technical tour de force, but they could only afford to build one for the price of several Great Westerns, and when it ran aground the company had little revenue and went bust.

    He never learned that lesson, and went onto the disastrous (though marvellous) Great Eastern - the largest ship that would exist for fifty years.

    He could have died one of the richest men in Britain, having set up a series of companies that would have lasted decades. Instead he ended up rather poor (his family had to sell most of his paintings), and lots of people lost their shirts investing in his projects.

    Including John Scott Russell, who was another fascinating scientist and man of the period. Whilst Brunel has many things named after him, including a university, Russell has just a modern aqueduct outside Edinburgh. This shows how important it is for your descendents to promote your legacy - something Brunel's children were excellent at.
    Indeed. I don't remember Russell featuring in the 2012 opening ceremony.
  • Foxy said:

    No Deal is not only the default, it is the preferred outcome of many people and MPs, albeit many of them ill informed.

    Labour are not going to back May's Deal, and solidarity is very tight. Even people like Liz Kendall are sticking strongly to the line.

    May is insufficiently flexible to change couse, by either A50 revocation or a #peoplesvote, and is not going to be defenestrated.

    Buckle up.

    In practice No Deal means the lack of enforcement of our own laws, both for practical and for logistic reasons. It is anarchy and I wouldn't expect it to last. I thinkbit likely that the WA would be signed off afterwards within weeks.

    We can't sign the WA after we've left as we'd have withdrawn. Any agreement after we've left would be a full normal treaty with every EU27 state giving a veto and needing national ratification compared with the super easy A50 route of QMV at EUCO + EP. If we want the WA we need to sign it before we leave.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,814
    edited December 2018

    A good piece, don't agree with all of it but food for thought.

    So:
    1. A growing push across the House to vote the deal to death this year. The deal is dead and with it May's final vestige of power and authority. She can't blackmail MPs to vote for her deal by running down the clock if her deal has already been killed
    2. There is a consensus in the House that No Deal would be a Bad Thing. Constitutionally we're in known waters when there is a government in office that MPs refuse to either support on policy or remove with a short fuse burning towards an economic bomb going off.
    3. There are Ways and Means for MPs to work around an obstructionist government refusing to act. Legislation does not have to come from ministers. Binding motions do not have to come from ministers. The government can act in contempt of the House and whilst we haven't seen action yet from the first one if it does so again you can imagine what will happen
    4. With the deal deal the remaining options are no deal crash Brexit or revoke A50. The majority says the former is a Bad Thing which leaves the latter however unpalatable many MPs will find it

    Never mind the Brexit fiasco, there is another growing fiasco in the Conservative Party. The party of government led by a Prime Minister unable and unwilling to act at a time of national crisis brought about personally by the Prime Minister. Whose MPs do not want her to lead them but who refuse to remove her. Parking their party in office whilst it refuses to do anything at all "because Corbyn". Whilst holding everyone hostage to a financial event which they know would be catastrophic.

    I don't think Tory MPs are thinking straight. If their plan is to destroy the reputation of the party then they are playing a blinder...

    Much as I'd like your plan to come true, the problem for the Tories is that sinking the government and rescuing the country also destroys the reputation of their party, and almost certainly leads to an early GE. It would be noble act, and the right thing to do, but for moderate Tories would be the equivalent of the LibDems joining the coalition.

    There's very little gratitude in politics.
  • Mr. P, said Remainer types in Cabinet need to line up behind one plan (even if it's just ordering them sequentially).

    Interesting on Mordaunt. I can't help but feel she'd make a great successor to May as the next permanent Conservative leader.
  • Yellow_SubmarineYellow_Submarine Posts: 167
    edited December 2018
    Scott_P said:
    Following on from two big leaks to The Times about rival cabinet plans to May"s deal. That's three freelancing operations in less than 72 hours since the leadership result. What we are all missing I think is that the leadership ballot has weakened not strengthened May. There must be a 50% chance next week will see a cabinet resignation/cabinet sacking/May's resignation.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,814

    Mr. P, said Remainer types in Cabinet need to line up behind one plan (even if it's just ordering them sequentially).

    Interesting on Mordaunt. I can't help but feel she'd make a great successor to May as the next permanent Conservative leader.

    Except that "managed no deal" is a slogan, not a plan, not even a thing. It'll likely fall apart very quickly.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,593
    edited December 2018

    Ah thanks, I wasn't aware of that.

    There seems little controversy about the fact he was a terrible mechanical engineer - and Gooch was hired to replace him in that role. The two men got on famously, which says much positive about Brunel - many great men would have hated being pushed out of such a role.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotives_of_the_Great_Western_Railway#Isambard_Kingdom_Brunel_(1835_-_1837)

    As for being a terrible engineer: he was not as popular at the time of his death as he was now, and some of his obituaries were rather negative. I'd never call him a 'terrible' engineer, but he did have a habit of pushing the limits too much, of preferring the new to the tested.

    Take his ships: the Great Western was novel and an outstanding success in service. If he had built three or four of these, put them in service, then the profits would have helped build other designs. Instead he only built one, and moved straight onto the much larger Great Britain. This was a technical tour de force, but they could only afford to build one for the price of several Great Westerns, and when it ran aground the company had little revenue and went bust.

    He never learned that lesson, and went onto the disastrous (though marvellous) Great Eastern - the largest ship that would exist for fifty years.

    He could have died one of the richest men in Britain, having set up a series of companies that would have lasted decades. Instead he ended up rather poor (his family had to sell most of his paintings), and lots of people lost their shirts investing in his projects.

    Including John Scott Russell, who was another fascinating scientist and man of the period. Whilst Brunel has many things named after him, including a university, Russell has just a modern aqueduct outside Edinburgh. This shows how important it is for your descendents to promote your legacy - something Brunel's children were excellent at.

    I don't think there's any controversy about the fact that as a mechanical engineer he was too radical and consistently over-reached himself (unlike Gooch, who tended to develop rather than to innovate). That's not to say he was a terrible mechanical engineer. His design for the Great Eastern, for example, incorporating the double hulled structure, was ludicrously advanced and had it been applied to ships consistently since that time would have prevented (just off the top of my head) the Titanic, the Torrey Canyon and the Sea Empress disasters.

    He was, I agree, a rotten businessman, but that applies to his civil engineering too (broad gauge, anyone)?

    As for Russell, he had no more relentless self-publicist than himself and was widely credited as the designer of the Great Eastern in the 1860s. What trashed his reputation was not his lack of a hagiographer but his expulsion from the Institute of Civil Engineers in 1866 following (further) accusations of fraud and embezzlement.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,846

    Mr. P, said Remainer types in Cabinet need to line up behind one plan (even if it's just ordering them sequentially).

    Interesting on Mordaunt. I can't help but feel she'd make a great successor to May as the next permanent Conservative leader.

    There is no moderate leader in the Commons. Just imagine how things would be if we brought Cameron, Hague, Osborne, Brown, Mandleson and Blair back into the Commons.

    We would have a new solution and government, it would be sorted in about a week.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,846
    edited December 2018
    IanB2 said:

    Mr. P, said Remainer types in Cabinet need to line up behind one plan (even if it's just ordering them sequentially).

    Interesting on Mordaunt. I can't help but feel she'd make a great successor to May as the next permanent Conservative leader.

    Except that "managed no deal" is a slogan, not a plan, not even a thing. It'll likely fall apart very quickly.
    May as well call it managed chaos.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,814
    Jonathan said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mr. P, said Remainer types in Cabinet need to line up behind one plan (even if it's just ordering them sequentially).

    Interesting on Mordaunt. I can't help but feel she'd make a great successor to May as the next permanent Conservative leader.

    Except that "managed no deal" is a slogan, not a plan, not even a thing. It'll likely fall apart very quickly.
    May as well call it managed chaos.
    The “no deal + “ fantasy is that if we just had the guts to walk away, refuse to sign the Withdrawal Agreement with the backstop in it, and withhold a good half of the money the Prime Minister promised this time last year, capitals, suddenly realising we were serious, would come running for a series of mini deals which assured full trading continuity in all key sectors on basically unchanged Single Market and Customs Union terms.

    I don’t know what tablets these people are taking, but I must confess I wish I were on them. It will be said of them as it was said of the Bourbons, I think: “they have learned nothing and they have forgotten nothing”.

    The reality is that if the deal on the table falls apart because we have said “no”, there will not be some smooth rapid suite of mini side deals – from aviation to fisheries, from road haulage to data, from derivatives to customs and veterinary checks, from medicines to financial services, as the EU affably sits down with this Prime Minister or another one.

    The 27 will legislate and institute unilaterally temporary arrangements which assure continuity where they need it, and cause us asymmetric difficulties where they can. And a UK Government, which knows the efficacy of most of its contingency planning depends, to a greater or lesser degree on others’ actions out of its control, will then have to react – no doubt with a mixture of inevitable compliance and bellicose retaliation.


    https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 3,027



    Interesting on Mordaunt. I can't help but feel she'd make a great successor to May as the next permanent Conservative leader.

    Why?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,593
    Jonathan said:

    Mr. P, said Remainer types in Cabinet need to line up behind one plan (even if it's just ordering them sequentially).

    Interesting on Mordaunt. I can't help but feel she'd make a great successor to May as the next permanent Conservative leader.

    There is no moderate leader in the Commons. Just imagine how things would be if we brought Cameron, Hague, Osborne, Brown, Mandleson and Blair back into the Commons.

    We would have a new solution and government, it would be sorted in about a week.
    An interesting example of how nothing is as responsible for the good old days as a bad memory.
  • Though Mordaunt's intervention is useful from an acceleration point of view. See also The Times coverage citing Hunt and Javid as now favouring no deal. The sooner businesses panic the better.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,846
    edited December 2018
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mr. P, said Remainer types in Cabinet need to line up behind one plan (even if it's just ordering them sequentially).

    Interesting on Mordaunt. I can't help but feel she'd make a great successor to May as the next permanent Conservative leader.

    There is no moderate leader in the Commons. Just imagine how things would be if we brought Cameron, Hague, Osborne, Brown, Mandleson and Blair back into the Commons.

    We would have a new solution and government, it would be sorted in about a week.
    An interesting example of how nothing is as responsible for the good old days as a bad memory.
    Not really. I just thinks it’s a curious thought experiment if Blair or Cameron were in the Commons now. It would be different IMO. The sensible tendencies in the Commons lack a leader.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,576
    An interesting read, this piece. I note the ability of the party to change the leadership election rules to facilitate May's removal in an emergency, although the likelihood of it coming to that during the Brexit process itself seems remote. The Conservative Party is so divided that it might not even get to the end of next March in one piece: what chance, then, of reaching a consensus on removing a leader that two-thirds of MPs have just voted to endorse?

    I concur with the assessment that No Deal is the most likely outcome. The Conservative pro-EU faction must know that they risk the collapse of their own party if they thwart Brexit using Labour votes to defeat their own colleagues - not to mention the likelihood of the fall of the Government due to DUP opposition. Labour needs another outbreak of internecine conflict between Corbyn and the backbenchers like a hole in the head. And if one party (most likely the Conservatives) breaks up whilst the other remains in one piece, then it opens the way for its opponent to divide and conquer. If the pro-EU Tories want to still be in jobs next Summer then they either need to be very, very sure that the Brexiteers won't pull down the temple, or they need to agree with their Labour counterparts to bring both parties to ruin in lockstep, ditching whole lifetimes of entrenched rivalry and party loyalty in the process. All of this is possible, but would appear improbable to put it mildly.

    Most likely MPs won't be able to agree on any course of action, regardless of the pressure applied to them from outside, and No Deal will go ahead by default next Spring. What happens after that depends on how severe the economic repercussions are. Anything from a damp squib to a technical recession and I think the Government carries on until 2022. Significant and prolonged dislocation, coupled with a spike in unemployment, and Labour may be able to persuade the DUP to dissociate itself from the mess and no confidence the Tories.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,593
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mr. P, said Remainer types in Cabinet need to line up behind one plan (even if it's just ordering them sequentially).

    Interesting on Mordaunt. I can't help but feel she'd make a great successor to May as the next permanent Conservative leader.

    There is no moderate leader in the Commons. Just imagine how things would be if we brought Cameron, Hague, Osborne, Brown, Mandleson and Blair back into the Commons.

    We would have a new solution and government, it would be sorted in about a week.
    An interesting example of how nothing is as responsible for the good old days as a bad memory.
    Not really. I just thinks it’s a curious thought experiment if Blair or Cameron were in the Commons now. It would be different IMO.
    Speaking for myself, I have a series of bad memories of all those politicians.
  • A great piece I disagree with. If you disagree with it, you have to work out why. The big truth that David rightly latches onto is that no deal is the default and under current circumstances is institutionally hard to shift.

    Where I disagree with David is that I think he underestimates the pressures to shift that default. But he might well be right and I might well be wrong.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 10,846
    edited December 2018
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mr. P, said Remainer types in Cabinet need to line up behind one plan (even if it's just ordering them sequentially).

    Interesting on Mordaunt. I can't help but feel she'd make a great successor to May as the next permanent Conservative leader.

    There is no moderate leader in the Commons. Just imagine how things would be if we brought Cameron, Hague, Osborne, Brown, Mandleson and Blair back into the Commons.

    We would have a new solution and government, it would be sorted in about a week.
    An interesting example of how nothing is as responsible for the good old days as a bad memory.
    Not really. I just thinks it’s a curious thought experiment if Blair or Cameron were in the Commons now. It would be different IMO.
    Speaking for myself, I have a series of bad memories of all those politicians.
    Sure. All effective pols leave a bad smell. The more effective you are, the more some dislike you. But the point is there is no moderate leader in the Commons capable of brokering a majority. Any of the dinosaurs could have done it.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 1,241
    Incidentally, @JosiasJessop , can I ask why you chose your name? As coincidence would have it I’m writing an article on the Wey & Arun Canal at the moment.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,814
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mr. P, said Remainer types in Cabinet need to line up behind one plan (even if it's just ordering them sequentially).

    Interesting on Mordaunt. I can't help but feel she'd make a great successor to May as the next permanent Conservative leader.

    There is no moderate leader in the Commons. Just imagine how things would be if we brought Cameron, Hague, Osborne, Brown, Mandleson and Blair back into the Commons.

    We would have a new solution and government, it would be sorted in about a week.
    An interesting example of how nothing is as responsible for the good old days as a bad memory.
    Indeed. Cameron's misjudgment led to all this. Hague's election campaign was risible. Osborne was the architect of austerity. Brown helped trash the economy. Blair invaded Iraq. And the less said about Mandleson the better.

    Politically, we'd be better off with a strong moderate voice to counter extreme Tories and extreme Labour. But the idea that list were all titans of sound judgement is laughable.
  • I don't really believe that Labour will rescue Mrs May's deal.
    I think that "the logistical difficulties in delivering within the space of weeks." will be solved by the EU allowing an extension for such a purpose.
  • Mr. Ace, I have money on her at 81.

    Mr. Jonathan, I agree, though May is interesting in that regard. She's not a far anything in terms of political positioning, but her character is stubborn beyond the point of reason and her approach is a mixture of closed off, underhanded, and cackhanded.
  • I don't really believe that Labour will rescue Mrs May's deal.
    I think that "the logistical difficulties in delivering a referendum within the space of weeks." will be solved by the EU allowing an extension for such a purpose.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,814
    edited December 2018
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mr. P, said Remainer types in Cabinet need to line up behind one plan (even if it's just ordering them sequentially).

    Interesting on Mordaunt. I can't help but feel she'd make a great successor to May as the next permanent Conservative leader.

    There is no moderate leader in the Commons. Just imagine how things would be if we brought Cameron, Hague, Osborne, Brown, Mandleson and Blair back into the Commons.

    We would have a new solution and government, it would be sorted in about a week.
    An interesting example of how nothing is as responsible for the good old days as a bad memory.
    Not really. I just thinks it’s a curious thought experiment if Blair or Cameron were in the Commons now. It would be different IMO. The sensible tendencies in the Commons lack a leader.
    My guess is that they'll end up with the opposite problem of too many leaders. Or at least too many plans and people who fancy themselves.
  • Following on from two big leaks to The Times about rival cabinet plans to May"s deal. That's three freelancing operations in less than 72 hours since the leadership result. What we are all missing I think is that the leadership ballot has weakened not strengthened May. There must be a 50% chance next week will see a cabinet resignation/cabinet sacking/May's resignation.

    Absolutely. Before the confidence vote we had multiple reports of multiple camps in cabinet freelancing. As we waited for the result to be announced Liam Fux was on the BBC telling us that the May deal would not get past cabinet without significant amendments. Kuennesberg astonished said "but you voted for it!" to which he replied that the cabinet had collectively supported it - very clear that a sizable by her remain in her cabinet whilst directly opposing it and her. Indeed leaving her in the role uniquely gives them the scope to freelance policy with a hope of landing it amongst the chaos.

    For the Tories it is an absurd position - the natural party of government remember. In office. Open mutiny in the cabinet. Most of the non-payroll MPs no confidencing the PM. Who makes grand statements about what she will do only to get immediately shot down. Holding a vast 5 day debate then pulling the vote knowing they haven't won the argument. And now that the finally get dragged kicking and screaming before a house that held them in contempt, what then?

    May says her deal is the only way. Her cabinet disagree. Parliament disagrees. The ECJ disagrees. Yet the party seems content to continue the open mutiny and parliament seems content to leave this fiasco in office.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,593
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Mr. P, said Remainer types in Cabinet need to line up behind one plan (even if it's just ordering them sequentially).

    Interesting on Mordaunt. I can't help but feel she'd make a great successor to May as the next permanent Conservative leader.

    There is no moderate leader in the Commons. Just imagine how things would be if we brought Cameron, Hague, Osborne, Brown, Mandleson and Blair back into the Commons.

    We would have a new solution and government, it would be sorted in about a week.
    An interesting example of how nothing is as responsible for the good old days as a bad memory.
    Not really. I just thinks it’s a curious thought experiment if Blair or Cameron were in the Commons now. It would be different IMO.
    Speaking for myself, I have a series of bad memories of all those politicians.
    Sure. All effective pols leave a bad smell. The more effective you are, the more some dislike you. But the point is there is no moderate leader in the Commons capable of brokering a majority. Any of the dinosaurs could have done it.
    There's quite a few ineffective ones in your list too!
  • Incidentally, if anyone, some time ago now, backed my 6.5 on a second referendum before the end of 2019, there's 1.79 on the referendum not happening in the same time frame on Betfair, which could be a handy hedge if you've not done that elsewhere yet.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,576
    Scott_P said:
    This would be the mythical version that consists of the deal minus the backstop, perhaps? Or is he referring to the other mythical version that exists only in Jeremy Corbyn's imagination?

    Parliament might as well vote to grant every voter a suitcase full of Krugerrands and a pet unicorn for Christmas.
  • A great piece I disagree with. If you disagree with it, you have to work out why. The big truth that David rightly latches onto is that no deal is the default and under current circumstances is institutionally hard to shift.

    Where I disagree with David is that I think he underestimates the pressures to shift that default. But he might well be right and I might well be wrong.

    I also think the pressure to shift the default will continue to increase as well over the coming weeks and be reflected in the polls / public opinion, which the Tories would be wise - in that case - to listen to.
  • IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_P said:

    Jonathan said:

    Is it possible to stop the PM hlding the nation to ransom by running down the clock?

    VONC the government
    So the answer's no?
    It wouldn't take long to organise and carry through a no confidence vote. And the hard Brexit lot don't have any confidence either, so it should be easy to carry.

    The difficult bit is assembling a consensus on what to do thereafter, from a bloc of MPs that would be a rainbow with people from pretty much every party. I just hope that the few clever ones like Grieve and Benn are closeted in a back room somewhere plotting out all the detail. The initiative does however need a lot more followers than leaders, and the trouble with politicians is that even the stupid ones think their opinion and input is somehow critical. They'll need to be up against the wire to get the sheep through the gate.
    This stuff - even now - feels like fantasy, but in a world where all of the options are starting to look
    unworkable or even more unattractive, I don’t rule out someone trying.

    How’s Margaret’s Beckett looking in the next PM stakes? :) :)

    Trouble is, the “grown ups” above are Uber-remain, not much more attached to reality than JRM, and will have trouble offering something which the grudgingly-accepting-middle will back. it probably couldn’t be on a platform of No Brexit (because pitchforks), but would probably have to become more remainy (to change the balance of negotiations with the EU), it would probably need an extension (because tick-tock) and referendum (because fig leaf of democracy). In short, it has to smell enough like Brexit to please a significant subsection of the 52pc, but not drive off a cliff. The same two bikes May has been trying to ride so successfully.

    Given all of that, it’s no less tall an order than May’s deal or any other solution, but as I say, we live in interesting times.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,280
    edited December 2018
    Options listed from max EU to min EU:

    1 Full membership. If we want to be a part of the EU, influence it and be in harmony with it, then this is the target. It will include Euro and greater integration which will be off putting for some but is the best form of membership.

    2 Revoke article 50 and remain on current terms. Quite why this option has any followers is a mystery. Our status as outsiders (Euro, Shengen, closer union etc) is going continue our fractious relationship with the project. The half in half out nature of our relationship is one of the major reasons we are where we are. With the EU travelling in a tax harmonising and integrating direction this option is likely to see resentment to the EU and our politicians retain high levels or increase. A future departure (or full membership) would be certain.

    3 The May deal. If it is rejected by a vast majority in Parliament there is no logic in including it in a referendum. Who, apart from the lone figures of May and perhaps Rory Stewart would fight for it? How could parliament ask us to endorse something they have rejected as completely unacceptable? If it passes the government has no future the DUP will vote no confidence. This isn't an attraction to Tory MPs, as an election would follow with May as leader. There is no incentive (except splitting the DUP from May) to help pass this.

    4 Leave with no deal. The default position that no serious politics will allow, but the position they are leading us towards. We might arrive by default. It is unlikely an extention would be granted for a referendum that included leave, or that Parliament would want it include leave.

    It would appear there are few sensible options.
    1 is probably the best but won't garner support because it requires integration
    2 is short sighted and stupid sticking plaster solution to increase future resentment
    3 is an unpopular compromise in parliament and the country
    4 is the owner of comprehensive negative publicity but is unpopular everywhere.
    5 we join USA (not a serious suggestion)
    6??

    EDIT in 4 popular appeared instead of unpopular
  • 4. With the deal [dead] the remaining options are no deal crash Brexit or revoke A50. The majority says the former is a Bad Thing which leaves the latter however unpalatable many MPs will find it

    This reasoning works for all the other options. The majority days that revoking A50 is politically unthinkable, which leaves the former clever unpalatable many MPs will find it. Similar reasoning is what keeps May's hopes alive.

    It's this threefold symmetry which is keeping us stuck.
  • Mr. Tweed, the leaders weigh heavily, too. May's stubborn and Corbyn's a far left imbecile. When was the last time both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition had been subject to votes of no confidence by their own MPs?
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,085
    edited December 2018
    Siding with Labour to salvage her excreable deal would surely be the straw that broke the camels back on splitting the party which would ensure a hard left Labour Gov for generations. Does May want that to be her legacy. I am not convinced. It didn’t work out too well for Cameron when he did precisely that over same sex marriage. Thousands of party members went to UKIP and he was forced to concede the EU referendum to stop the defections.

    She won’t resign but that is the only honourable course open to her to save her party. Her deal is finished with no chance of being resurrected. The problem for the Tory Party if she did resign is who would replace her. The muppets in the ERG can’t agree on their preferred candidate and neither can the extremist Remainers like Rudd, Lidlington, Soubry, Morgan Greening agree on theirs. Even if they could there would be no common ground between them,

    I can’t see Labour moving a VNOC until May’s deal is dead but they have no plans of their own so pretending that Labour are any more coherent is extremely foolish. They are certainly more vindictive as their Jewish members and non Momentum supported members have found out to their cost. In office, they would make even the catastrophically bad May look good.

    Personally I think fears of a no deal are hugely exaggerated. Yes, the first few years would be painful because of the gross negligence shown by May and Hammond in refusing to prepare for it. Once we got our act together though, we’d be fine. It’s clearly not preferable. A Canada style FTA was always the sensible option, if it was available but it’s too late for that now.

    Difficult to see anything other that a no deal followed by a hard left Labour Gov. every Tory MP, no matter which side of the Brexit debate they are on, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for making Corbyn and McDknnell look credible.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,593
    philiph said:

    6??

    Let's go for an old British favourite. Invade France.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,705
    How secure is May from defenstration? The '22 could change the rules to it requiring letters from 30% of Tory MPs to hold a VONC in the PM within 12 months of one triggered by 15% of Tory MPs. Back to counting letters.....
  • It is also coming to a head in the Labour Party. A motion is being circulated for CLPs to pass urgently demanding that the NEC calls an emergency special party conference in early January to confirm party policy to support a new referendum with remain on the ballot if no General Election is forthcoming. As Jezbollah refuses to call a VONC there is of course no prospect of a GE.

    Entertainingly this motion is effectively a wedge between Jez and the headbangers. They endlessly bleat on about the rights of members who elected him. Yet here is a clear and specific example of the members backing a policy which Jeremy refuses to follow. I like so many members want the Leader of the Labour Party to represent the policies of the Labour Party as voted for by the members of the Labour Party at conference. Brexit policy is up to us. Not him.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,593
    The Conservatives will not revoke Article 50.

    Labour might bounce them into it - I think they have the numbers - but if so, expect a massacre in the North at a subsequent, indeed consecutive, General Election.

    This is why crashout now looks likely.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,576

    May says her deal is the only way. Her cabinet disagree. Parliament disagrees. The ECJ disagrees. Yet the party seems content to continue the open mutiny and parliament seems content to leave this fiasco in office.

    The Cabinet only just voted to keep May. They can't get rid of her now (at least not absent a broad consensus in the Parliamentary party, by means that David Herdson has described.)

    Parliament can't agree on a solution to Brexit, so is powerless. In any event, so long as the disputatious factions of the Tory Party and their DUP allies manage to hold together, May can't be removed by it.

    The ECJ has offered hope to Remainers, but obviously has no influence over the processes that might make its judgement relevant.

    And so the Plank is facilitated to continue her non-leadership.
  • I think this is too pessimistic about TMay's options. She's still polling as well as or better than every alternative Tory, and way ahead of the opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn. If she gets forced into a new election, there's a decent chance that she'd actually win it. However, she needs to avoid the economy getting blown up in the meantime, so she needs to avoid no-deal.

    To avoid no-deal, she needs to get the votes for her deal in parliament. We know at least one way she can do this: TMay and SNP+LD+Lab-Remain agree on a binding Deal vs Remain Referendum. You can use the same electorate and the same rules as last time. She'd get an extension for this, so it's OK if her government falls and she fights a general election as well: Like I say, she may well win it. There may be other ways, but this is the obvious one.

    How does her position look after the referendum?

    If her deal wins, she's vindicated. The voters backed her policy. She just carries on.

    If Remain wins, potentially some of the ERG ultras break off to UKIPv2, which brings her even closer to the centre of gravity of what's left of the Conservative Party. Somebody could try to challenge her, but from which end? The anti-EU end just got definitively rejected by the voters. The pro-EU end leave the anti-EU end spitting even more feathers than TMay does. She's still Prime Minister, the economy suddenly gets a much-needed surge, the voters are sick of talking about Brexit, and she wants to talk about something else like grammar schools or vast dystopian surveillance systems. So she just carries on.

    Agreed. Given she won't be PM for that much longer, I imagine her view on her own legacy here will ultimately be important.

    The above will be far kinder to her than no deal, especially as she won't even be around to manage the chaos and be blamed for the aftermath (like Cameron).
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,895
    Alistair said:

    Chris Deerin taking a strong hit off the pipe before writing a column

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/12/scottish-tories-are-preparing-back-second-brexit-referendum

    Just astounding nonsense from top to bottom.

    Can you imagine them ever getting a backbone and doing anything, especially self seeking Ruthie. They will remain sub regional office sockpuppets. Most of them would struggle to tie their shoelaces.
  • Siding with Labour to salvage her excreable deal would surely be the straw that broke the camels back on splitting the party which would ensure a hard left Labour Gov for generations. Does May want that to be her legacy. I am not convinced. It didn’t work out too well for Cameron when he did precisely that over same sex marriage. Thousands of party members went to UKIP and he was forced to concede the EU referendum to stop the defections.

    She won’t resign but that is the only honourable course open to her to save her party. Her deal is finished with no chance of being resurrected. The problem for the Tory Party if she did resign is who would replace her. The muppets in the ERG can’t agree on their preferred candidate and neither can the extremist Remainers like Rudd, Lidlington, Soubry, Morgan Greening agree on theirs. Even if they could there would be no common ground between them,

    I can’t see Labour moving a VNOC until May’s deal is dead but they have no plans of their own so pretending that Labour are any more coherent is extremely foolish. They are certainly more vindictive as their Jewish members and non Momentum supported members have found out to their cost. In office, they would make even the catastrophically bad May look good.

    Personally I think fears of a no deal are hugely exaggerated. Yes, the first few years would be painful because of the gross negligence shown by May and Hammond in refusing to prepare for it. Once we got our act together though, we’d be fine. It’s clearly not preferable. A Canada style FTA was always the sensible option, if it was available but it’s too late for that now.

    Difficult to see anything other that a no deal followed by a hard left Labour Gov. every Tory MP, no matter which side of the Brexit debate they are on, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for making Corbyn and McDknnell look credible.

    The "it will all be fine" line is very similar to what we heard about the prospects of getting an advantageous deal with the EU immediately pre and post the referendum, or the "easiest deal in history" - hope is, again, overcoming logic and experience.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,814

    ..fears of a no deal are hugely exaggerated. Yes, the first few years would be painful .

    Are you for real?

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,831
    ydoethur said:

    (Snip)
    I don't think there's any controversy about the fact that as a mechanical engineer he was too radical and consistently over-reached himself (unlike Gooch, who tended to develop rather than to innovate). That's not to say he was a terrible mechanical engineer. His design for the Great Eastern, for example, incorporating the double hulled structure, was ludicrously advanced and had it been applied to ships consistently since that time would have prevented (just off the top of my head) the Titanic, the Torrey Canyon and the Sea Empress disasters.

    He was, I agree, a rotten businessman, but that applies to his civil engineering too (broad gauge, anyone)?

    As for Russell, he had no more relentless self-publicist than himself and was widely credited as the designer of the Great Eastern in the 1860s. What trashed his reputation was not his lack of a hagiographer but his expulsion from the Institute of Civil Engineers in 1866 following (further) accusations of fraud and embezzlement.

    Yet Russell built the superlative Vienna Rotunda a few years later.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotunde

    The argument is that Brunel worked very closely on shipbuilding with others, such as Russell, who actually founded the Institution of Naval Architects and knew what he was doing. The double-hulled structure was advanced, but was also massively expensive (*), which was why it did not become common. AIUI the GE's hull form, machinery and structure were all Russell's design, not Brunel's.

    When something was a success, Brunel's supporters gave him much of the credit; when they failed, his supporters threw much of the blame onto others. Brunel's family allegedly hated Russell.

    When I was growing up, Russell was a bogeyman and Brunel a hero: Russell was the reason why the Great Eastern failed, and that led to Brunel's death. As I've read up on this over the years, I've modified that view: both men were deeply flawed geniuses in different ways. It is just that a Brunel industry promotes their man incessantly, and Russell suffers for it.

    It is very interesting to read the Engineer's obituary of Russell, which is rather more positive than their one of Brunel a few years earlier!

    Then again, I got married on HMS Warrior, which was a ship built by Russell in 1860, so I'm bound to be a bit biased. ;)

    (*) There's a legend that when the great ship was broken up off Liverpool, they found the bodies of a man and boy, both riveters, who had been sealed up in a section of the double hull during construction. Almost certainly untrue, but a grizzly story that 'explains' the ships curse.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,280
    ydoethur said:

    philiph said:

    6??

    Let's go for an old British favourite. Invade France.
    There won't be enough left when the hi viz warriors have completed the revolution against Emporor Emmanuel 1
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 20,895
    IanB2 said:

    Mr. P, said Remainer types in Cabinet need to line up behind one plan (even if it's just ordering them sequentially).

    Interesting on Mordaunt. I can't help but feel she'd make a great successor to May as the next permanent Conservative leader.

    Except that "managed no deal" is a slogan, not a plan, not even a thing. It'll likely fall apart very quickly.
    Hard to see how it can be more crap than May's total capitulation.
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 1,085
    edited December 2018
    IanB2 said:

    ..fears of a no deal are hugely exaggerated. Yes, the first few years would be painful .

    Are you for real?

    Are you ? Being scared by Treasury forecasts when you have not seen and don’t undstand the underlying assumptions and when they have no credible track record of forecasting success is obviously more your line than mine.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 19,022

    gilets jaunes protest running out of steam. fewer demonstators so far, though I am reliably informed its freezing in Paris

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2018/12/15/01016-20181215LIVWWW00014-en-direct-gilets-jaunes-l-acte-v-de-nouvelles-manifestations-la-crainte-des-casseurs.php
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 3,027
    IanB2 said:

    “they have learned nothing and they have forgotten nothing”.

    I wish I had a euro for every time I've read this on here. It appears at least 3 times/day.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 23,705
    edited December 2018
    So we have used about 90% of the time available from the 2016 Referendum to March 29, 2019 - and frankly, I still have no clue what the world will look like next March 30th. More to the point, nor does anyone else. Options from Remain -> second vote -> new deal with the EU -> pull Article 50 -> organised No Deal -> disorganised No Deal all seem to still have their vocal supporters.

    Which points to one big issue: government by Cabinet is broken. It has descended into little cliques and power-struggles for the succession that mirror the number of options available. Sat above them, a bloody-minded, bloody difficult woman who has only one answer- a deal which has the unique distinction of unifying everyone but the PM in condemning its awfulness. There is no power to direct. Frankly, the Cabinet is just a rabble.

    It's worth pointing out that the gravitational pull of Boris Johnson is still affecting events at the heart of our political solar system. May remains in place only because a sizeable number of Tory MPs hate Boris so much, they would rather vote to keep May as the Ringmaster of Chaos than allow him to be appointed her successor by the membership. Any sensible group of MPs would have known that keeping May gave the EU evey incentive to keep to their deal with her. The meaningful change to the deal she promised them in order to keep her job was ALWAYS impossible for her to deliver. But hey, it kept Boris from having a try....even as it makes his wish to see the PMs deal die edge ever closer. In that at least, it seems Boris will get his wish without needing to be PM.
  • Siding with Labour to salvage her excreable deal would surely be the straw that broke the camels back on splitting the party which would ensure a hard left Labour Gov for generations. Does May want that to be her legacy. I am not convinced. It didn’t work out too well for Cameron when he did precisely that over same sex marriage. Thousands of party members went to UKIP and he was forced to concede the EU referendum to stop the defections.

    She won’t resign but that is the only honourable course open to her to save her party. Her deal is finished with no chance of being resurrected. The problem for the Tory Party if she did resign is who would replace her. The muppets in the ERG can’t agree on their preferred candidate and neither can the extremist Remainers like Rudd, Lidlington, Soubry, Morgan Greening agree on theirs. Even if they could there would be no common ground between them,

    I can’t see Labour moving a VNOC until May’s deal is dead but they have no plans of their own so pretending that Labour are any more coherent is extremely foolish. They are certainly more vindictive as their Jewish members and non Momentum supported members have found out to their cost. In office, they would make even the catastrophically bad May look good.

    Personally I think fears of a no deal are hugely exaggerated. Yes, the first few years would be painful because of the gross negligence shown by May and Hammond in refusing to prepare for it. Once we got our act together though, we’d be fine. It’s clearly not preferable. A Canada style FTA was always the sensible option, if it was available but it’s too late for that now.

    Difficult to see anything other that a no deal followed by a hard left Labour Gov. every Tory MP, no matter which side of the Brexit debate they are on, should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for making Corbyn and McDknnell look credible.

    The "it will all be fine" line is very similar to what we heard about the prospects of getting an advantageous deal with the EU immediately pre and post the referendum, or the "easiest deal in history" - hope is, again, overcoming logic and experience.
    Those of us who didn’t panic when Osborne publishes his Treasury forecast and then his punishment budget have been pretty much vindictaed I think.
This discussion has been closed.