Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The great Brexiters gamble – go with TMay’s deal or risking Br

SystemSystem Posts: 11,015
edited February 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The great Brexiters gamble – go with TMay’s deal or risking Brexit not happening at all

Betdata.io chart of movement on the Betfair exchange

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,841
    Morning all :)
  • Options
    asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    Not convinced. For this to be credible .you require a competent, pro remain labour party.

    I suspect that no deal is now unstoppable if they call her bluff.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,841
    I suppose the high risk part of it is whether the EU will agree to a lengthy delay. If they won't or don't (and unlike Digby Jones I didn't go into this thinking the EU would roll over and give us everything we wanted - incredible he used to lead the CBI!!) the cliff edge looms.

    There's also the reaction within the Conservative Party to this - would there be a majority in Parliament for a motion NOT to seek a delay?
  • Options
    asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    A delay is not an outcome. There's only 3 end states, revoke, some type of deal or no deal.

    A delay to kick the can further is pointless, why would anyone do this?

    Unless either the HoC or EU backs down, well, you get the idea.......
  • Options

    The hardliners were probably ready to risk a no deal

    Point of order. The hardliners would be willing to compromise to accept an EU capitulation, but they give every impression of preferring a no deal exit.

    I think Theresa May would also prefer no deal to a lengthy delay.

    There is a small chance that she would delay for the purpose of holding a public vote (whether via a general election or a referendum) to win public support for the Withdrawal Agreement. It would be consistent with the stated reason for her holding the election in 2017. But I don't think that is likely either.

    This looks to me like either an empty threat to try and pull the ERG into line, or wishful thinking on the part of anti-no dealers.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,210
    This has been an obvious (to anyone outside the ERG loons) no brainer for months. We may end up with a no deal Brexit by accident but I cannot believe that we will end up with one by design. The options are May's deal with some face saving tweak or remain.

    FWIW I still believe the hysteria about no deal Brexit is completely overdone and any very short term problems would prove to be exactly that. But it is unnecessary damage and the longer term consequences for our future relationship with the EU are sub optimal so we should avoid it if we can.

    What is causing damage is the never ending uncertainty. If we really end up waiting till March for a deal the difference between no deal and deal will be much smaller than it should be. Politicians are making a self indulgent arse of this. They need to do the deal and do it now.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914
    edited February 2019
    What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?

    I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.
  • Options
    The other thing about this is that it lets Labour off the hook.

    While I am sure that Theresa would prefer to pass the Withdrawal Agreement without relying on Labour votes, I think the surest path to passing the Withdrawal Agreement is with some fudge on the Customs Union in the political declaration that allows Corbyn to claim he's won a great victory to force May to accept a 'Labour' Brexit and May to claim that she has stuck to her red lines.

    Agreeing this sort of deal with May is the only way that Corbyn escapes the pressure of having to back a People's Vote as no deal approaches. But with a delay the pressure on Corbyn recedes.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,052
    stodge said:

    I suppose the high risk part of it is whether the EU will agree to a lengthy delay. If they won't or don't (and unlike Digby Jones I didn't go into this thinking the EU would roll over and give us everything we wanted - incredible he used to lead the CBI!!) the cliff edge looms.

    Digby “I know I’m right” Jones

    https://twitter.com/propertyspot/status/1095610368330731523?s=21
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914
    edited February 2019
    Using Betfair's two exit markets, we can calculate the implied probability of leaving with a deal on March 29th is 6%.
    Implied probability of leaving without a deal on March 29th is 24%.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,149
    edited February 2019

    A delay is not an outcome. There's only 3 end states, revoke, some type of deal or no deal.

    A delay to kick the can further is pointless, why would anyone do this?

    Unless either the HoC or EU backs down, well, you get the idea.......

    Why would anyone do it? Well, there's no majority for Deal or Revoke, so until that changes the only end state is No Deal. This is really, really bad, so any government with self-preservation instincts will try to avoid getting to the end state for as long as possible, ideally until either something changes allowing one of the other two end states or the whole shitshow becomes somebody else's problem.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,841
    DavidL said:

    This has been an obvious (to anyone outside the ERG loons) no brainer for months. We may end up with a no deal Brexit by accident but I cannot believe that we will end up with one by design. The options are May's deal with some face saving tweak or remain.

    FWIW I still believe the hysteria about no deal Brexit is completely overdone and any very short term problems would prove to be exactly that. But it is unnecessary damage and the longer term consequences for our future relationship with the EU are sub optimal so we should avoid it if we can.

    What is causing damage is the never ending uncertainty. If we really end up waiting till March for a deal the difference between no deal and deal will be much smaller than it should be. Politicians are making a self indulgent arse of this. They need to do the deal and do it now.

    I agree with you on the "No Deal" scenario but with the economy clearly slowing it's not going to take us much to tip us over into negative growth.

    As for the politics, the problem for may who oppose the Deal are that aspects of it would, in their eyes, weaken us economically and in terms of making future trading arrangements. The critique seems to be it would leave us in a vassal State situation so contend hurried implementation of May's WA might cause us longer term problems.
  • Options
    Still amazed at the odds available on leaving on March 29th - 9/4 on Betfair which seems pretty generous
  • Options
    anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,578
    No deal is the default position and it cannot be taken off the table unilaterally by either the EU or the UK. So May cannot present a forced choice of her deal or an extension to A50 and pretend the are no other options - no deal will still be there as a default.

  • Options
    How many commentators do we expect today to be worrying about the fact inflation has come in below target? Zero?

    Anyone have any idea of anything we could do in the next few weeks to help get inflation back up to its target level? ;)
  • Options
    What a mess. How did we end up here? Answer: A governing party where the extremist loonies have too much influence, and a main opposition party where the extremist loonies are running it.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914

    How many commentators do we expect today to be worrying about the fact inflation has come in below target? Zero?

    Anyone have any idea of anything we could do in the next few weeks to help get inflation back up to its target level? ;)

    Above the best buy mortgage offer rate, but not so high that it could countenance an interest rate rise is the best inflation number for the average working man or woman. So anything around 2% is nigh on perfect :)
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    Using Betfair's two exit markets, we can calculate the implied probability of leaving with a deal on March 29th is 6%.
    Implied probability of leaving without a deal on March 29th is 24%.

    The no deal probability looks more or less right but if the Hoc is holding the meaningful vote the week of March 25 surely the probability of leaving with a deal by March 29 should be zero?
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,985
    stodge said:

    DavidL said:

    This has been an obvious (to anyone outside the ERG loons) no brainer for months. We may end up with a no deal Brexit by accident but I cannot believe that we will end up with one by design. The options are May's deal with some face saving tweak or remain.

    FWIW I still believe the hysteria about no deal Brexit is completely overdone and any very short term problems would prove to be exactly that. But it is unnecessary damage and the longer term consequences for our future relationship with the EU are sub optimal so we should avoid it if we can.

    What is causing damage is the never ending uncertainty. If we really end up waiting till March for a deal the difference between no deal and deal will be much smaller than it should be. Politicians are making a self indulgent arse of this. They need to do the deal and do it now.

    I agree with you on the "No Deal" scenario but with the economy clearly slowing it's not going to take us much to tip us over into negative growth.

    As for the politics, the problem for may who oppose the Deal are that aspects of it would, in their eyes, weaken us economically and in terms of making future trading arrangements. The critique seems to be it would leave us in a vassal State situation so contend hurried implementation of May's WA might cause us longer term problems.
    This is danger of delaying to which I am sure even the lackwits of the ERG are alive. So far Brexit has had a favourable economical tailwind. As soon as Faisal Islam is on Newsnight with a face like he's had a centipede inserted into his urethra and a GDP graph heading south it's going to be a completely different game.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,210
    stodge said:

    DavidL said:

    This has been an obvious (to anyone outside the ERG loons) no brainer for months. We may end up with a no deal Brexit by accident but I cannot believe that we will end up with one by design. The options are May's deal with some face saving tweak or remain.

    FWIW I still believe the hysteria about no deal Brexit is completely overdone and any very short term problems would prove to be exactly that. But it is unnecessary damage and the longer term consequences for our future relationship with the EU are sub optimal so we should avoid it if we can.

    What is causing damage is the never ending uncertainty. If we really end up waiting till March for a deal the difference between no deal and deal will be much smaller than it should be. Politicians are making a self indulgent arse of this. They need to do the deal and do it now.

    I agree with you on the "No Deal" scenario but with the economy clearly slowing it's not going to take us much to tip us over into negative growth.

    As for the politics, the problem for may who oppose the Deal are that aspects of it would, in their eyes, weaken us economically and in terms of making future trading arrangements. The critique seems to be it would leave us in a vassal State situation so contend hurried implementation of May's WA might cause us longer term problems.
    I agree that the timing of this could have been better. Most of the EU is teetering on the brink of recession and we are not immune. No deal disruption could rub off a few tenths making the economy shrink in the short term.

    But the fact that the political declaration is just that works both ways. If we don't like the outcome of the FTA negotiations we can walk away and, bluntly, what are the EU going to do about it, even in respect of the backstop? It is all up for grabs still and much will depend on the quality of leadership we have going into the next, more important, phase.

    I personally have lost all confidence in May being able to do that work with any competence. I want her gone as soon as possible after the WA is implemented. Finding a more competent replacement is trickier but we must do better than this.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,210
    Scott_P said:
    Please, please tell me that this is not another politician not persuaded by this "germ" theory.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549
    DavidL said:

    This has been an obvious (to anyone outside the ERG loons) no brainer for months. We may end up with a no deal Brexit by accident but I cannot believe that we will end up with one by design. The options are May's deal with some face saving tweak or remain.

    FWIW I still believe the hysteria about no deal Brexit is completely overdone and any very short term problems would prove to be exactly that. But it is unnecessary damage and the longer term consequences for our future relationship with the EU are sub optimal so we should avoid it if we can.

    What is causing damage is the never ending uncertainty. If we really end up waiting till March for a deal the difference between no deal and deal will be much smaller than it should be. Politicians are making a self indulgent arse of this. They need to do the deal and do it now.

    Deal or Remain have been the two most likely outcomes for a long time now, as the number of MPs willing to crash out of the EU is even smaller than the number willing to back May's deal. And despite everything said by the government I have thought they will pull the plug on no deal if it becomes necessary.

    I agree with you about Brexit hysteria too, Remainers seem to be doubling down on the hellfire and brimstone rhetoric about hard Brexit, I honestly think they would gain more traction by being more realistic.

    I also agree about uncertainty being the biggest issues, it's not the outcome that is the biggest problem for business, it's the fact that with about 7 weeks to go they don't know which plan needs to be implemented.
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?

    I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.

    Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,210
    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    This has been an obvious (to anyone outside the ERG loons) no brainer for months. We may end up with a no deal Brexit by accident but I cannot believe that we will end up with one by design. The options are May's deal with some face saving tweak or remain.

    FWIW I still believe the hysteria about no deal Brexit is completely overdone and any very short term problems would prove to be exactly that. But it is unnecessary damage and the longer term consequences for our future relationship with the EU are sub optimal so we should avoid it if we can.

    What is causing damage is the never ending uncertainty. If we really end up waiting till March for a deal the difference between no deal and deal will be much smaller than it should be. Politicians are making a self indulgent arse of this. They need to do the deal and do it now.

    Deal or Remain have been the two most likely outcomes for a long time now, as the number of MPs willing to crash out of the EU is even smaller than the number willing to back May's deal. And despite everything said by the government I have thought they will pull the plug on no deal if it becomes necessary.

    I agree with you about Brexit hysteria too, Remainers seem to be doubling down on the hellfire and brimstone rhetoric about hard Brexit, I honestly think they would gain more traction by being more realistic.

    I also agree about uncertainty being the biggest issues, it's not the outcome that is the biggest problem for business, it's the fact that with about 7 weeks to go they don't know which plan needs to be implemented.
    And they are now apparently planning to wait until the week before. Really, they should be taken out and shot.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549

    How many commentators do we expect today to be worrying about the fact inflation has come in below target? Zero?

    Anyone have any idea of anything we could do in the next few weeks to help get inflation back up to its target level? ;)

    Well most economic commentary is utterly worthless as perusing any rolling news channel for about 30 minutes or so will demonstrate. e.g. Great import being attributed to a movement of an index that is well within normal variance.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914

    Pulpstar said:

    What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?

    I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.

    Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
    That 'almost certainly' excludes leaving on time I think ?
  • Options
    anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,578

    What a mess. How did we end up here? Answer: A governing party where the extremist loonies have too much influence, and a main opposition party where the extremist loonies are running it.

    This has come about because both main parties decided to transfer the power to elect leaders from MPs to party members. Party members have no direct connection to voters, by their very nature they are untypical of the population at large and hold more definite and often more extreme political views than most people. Only a small minority of party members involve themselves in campaigning and encountering real electors. Most members have little idea of, or patience with, the compromises needed to govern in the interests of the whole country and not just a vocal minority. And these are the people to whom parties have entrusted the power to choose our prime minister.

    In the past the choice was made by MPs, who had been through both selection and election processes and who knew the candidates strengths and weaknesses from personal experience and who could, and often did, ignore the views of extremists in their constituencies. This system kept the extremist loonies in check. But now they have taken over and are destroying everything in their path.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,210
    glw said:

    How many commentators do we expect today to be worrying about the fact inflation has come in below target? Zero?

    Anyone have any idea of anything we could do in the next few weeks to help get inflation back up to its target level? ;)

    Well most economic commentary is utterly worthless as perusing any rolling news channel for about 30 minutes or so will demonstrate. e.g. Great import being attributed to a movement of an index that is well within normal variance.
    The fall in inflation is in fact another warning sign that demand is weak and the economy is slowing down. Remainer fanatics are probably missing a trick there.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549
    DavidL said:

    And they are now apparently planning to wait until the week before. Really, they should be taken out and shot.

    There sure as hell would be a lot of volunteers willing to form the firing squad from Britain's businesses.
  • Options
    The first question to consider is when MPs are going to start panicking in numbers. It hasn't happened yet, but it probably will.

    The second question to consider is the order in which groups of MPs start panicking. That may make a big difference to the ultimate outcome.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,210
    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    And they are now apparently planning to wait until the week before. Really, they should be taken out and shot.

    There sure as hell would be a lot of volunteers willing to form the firing squad from Britain's businesses.
    Perhaps, to give them some chance of survival, we could ask Grayling to organise it?
  • Options
    Scott_P said:
    I've never seen mould on a jar of jam. Does the Prime Minister live in a cave?
  • Options
    Doesn't everyone scrape the mouldy bit off the top of the jam though? In what way is that unusual behaviour?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,210

    What a mess. How did we end up here? Answer: A governing party where the extremist loonies have too much influence, and a main opposition party where the extremist loonies are running it.

    This has come about because both main parties decided to transfer the power to elect leaders from MPs to party members. Party members have no direct connection to voters, by their very nature they are untypical of the population at large and hold more definite and often more extreme political views than most people. Only a small minority of party members involve themselves in campaigning and encountering real electors. Most members have little idea of, or patience with, the compromises needed to govern in the interests of the whole country and not just a vocal minority. And these are the people to whom parties have entrusted the power to choose our prime minister.

    In the past the choice was made by MPs, who had been through both selection and election processes and who knew the candidates strengths and weaknesses from personal experience and who could, and often did, ignore the views of extremists in their constituencies. This system kept the extremist loonies in check. But now they have taken over and are destroying everything in their path.
    I think that there is a lot of truth in this and it is supported by similar outcomes in the USA. As primaries/caucuses have become the more dominant way of determining the candidate the quality of the candidates has fallen. Bring back the smoke filled rooms with party bosses!
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,190
    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    And they are now apparently planning to wait until the week before. Really, they should be taken out and shot.

    There sure as hell would be a lot of volunteers willing to form the firing squad from Britain's businesses.

    I’m normally a gentle soul but can I join in too, pretty please?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914

    Doesn't everyone scrape the mouldy bit off the top of the jam though? In what way is that unusual behaviour?

    Easy chance to have a pop at May..
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,970

    Scott_P said:
    I've never seen mould on a jar of jam. Does the Prime Minister live in a cave?
    I'm surprised that, as a diabetic, the PM eats much jam. Diabetic jams surely shouldn't get mouldy that quickly.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,326
    edited February 2019
    FPT from Southam:

    Nick is very typical of a large number of Labour members. He likes Corbyn on a personal level. He sees qualities in him that he admires: mild, well mannered, not bothered about money, loyal to his friends, very concerned about social justice at home and abroad. In many ways, he is exactly how Labour members would like to see themselves. And because of that they just do not see all the baggage that Corbyn brings: his reliance on the advice of people who have spent their adult lives fighting the Labour party, his long friendships with anti-Semites and various apologists for terror, his automatic support for anti-Western regimes of any kind and his assumption that wealth creation just happens and does not need to be incentivised. Corbyn genuinely does make a lot of Labour members feel good about themselves. To the vast majority of voters this is totally inexplicable, of course - but Labour members, like Tory members, are nothing like the vast majority of voters.

    What all this means is that for the membership having Jeremy Corbyn in charge is far more important than winning a general election. It's totemic. But here's the thing - because a lot of it is actually personal to Corbyn, it would be wrong to assume that this affection will automatically transfer to the next person the far left offers up for leadership. It will have to be earned. If it isn't, I suspect the next leader - who is a long way off (way past the next election whatever the result) - may be more mainstream.
    ----------
    As Stereotomy says, the polling suggests that people really liked the 2017 manifesto, but Southam is right all the same - it wasn't especially left-wing in most respects, and someone like EdM could certainly have led on it. That said, people believe that JC would be left-wing (whether you like him or not, absolutely nobody thinks he's a secret centrist), and that gave leeway to have a fairly moderate programme without annoying the left. As Harold Wilson said, Labour is best run from the left for that reason.

    On some details I disagree with Southam's analysis - I'm convinced that being consistently critical of Israel is nothing to do with anti-semitism. I'm not a big fan of the great western alliance anyway, least of all with Trump leading it. And I'm a latter-day non-interventionist, after seeing the mess I helped create in Iraq. So for me and many members, most of JC's foreign policy is a plus, not something to overlook..

    But yes, if JC decided to move on I'd look at all contenders with a reasonably open mind, and that's quite common among members (though note that this is weaker than it would otherwise be because people like Southam have dropped out). I'd tend to exclude anyone who has been actively briefing against JC, but someone like Starmer would certainly be worth looking at.

  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549

    This has come about because both main parties decided to transfer the power to elect leaders from MPs to party members. Party members have no direct connection to voters, by their very nature they are untypical of the population at large and hold more definite and often more extreme political views than most people. Only a small minority of party members involve themselves in campaigning and encountering real electors. Most members have little idea of, or patience with, the compromises needed to govern in the interests of the whole country and not just a vocal minority. And these are the people to whom parties have entrusted the power to choose our prime minister.

    In the past the choice was made by MPs, who had been through both selection and election processes and who knew the candidates strengths and weaknesses from personal experience and who could, and often did, ignore the views of extremists in their constituencies. This system kept the extremist loonies in check. But now they have taken over and are destroying everything in their path.

    We are in real danger of ending up with leaders like those produced by the US primary system, which as far as I can tell seems to exist only to prevent good candidates from being nominated.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914

    Scott_P said:
    I've never seen mould on a jar of jam. Does the Prime Minister live in a cave?
    I'm surprised that, as a diabetic, the PM eats much jam. Diabetic jams surely shouldn't get mouldy that quickly.
    I'd guess she does eat regular jam, but in small amounts - so her jam pots last a while hence spore cultures can develop on the top ?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,588

    Doesn't everyone scrape the mouldy bit off the top of the jam though? In what way is that unusual behaviour?

    Apart from meat, I have a healthy contempt for useby dates.

    Mould on jam does have fairly deep roots, so scrape deeply. Mould is not poisonous though, think of blue cheese.
  • Options

    What a mess. How did we end up here? Answer: A governing party where the extremist loonies have too much influence, and a main opposition party where the extremist loonies are running it.

    This has come about because both main parties decided to transfer the power to elect leaders from MPs to party members. Party members have no direct connection to voters, by their very nature they are untypical of the population at large and hold more definite and often more extreme political views than most people. Only a small minority of party members involve themselves in campaigning and encountering real electors. Most members have little idea of, or patience with, the compromises needed to govern in the interests of the whole country and not just a vocal minority. And these are the people to whom parties have entrusted the power to choose our prime minister.

    In the past the choice was made by MPs, who had been through both selection and election processes and who knew the candidates strengths and weaknesses from personal experience and who could, and often did, ignore the views of extremists in their constituencies. This system kept the extremist loonies in check. But now they have taken over and are destroying everything in their path.
    That does not explain Theresa May's leadership, who was not elected by the Tory Party members and had the largest number of MP nominations. Indeed she had an absolute majority of support from MPs in the first round of voting so would probably have become Conservative Party leader under any of the previous systems used to choose their leader.

    Maybe you could argue that it is only the fear of who the Party members would elect in a leadership ballot now that saved May in the confidence vote in December.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited February 2019

    What a mess. How did we end up here? Answer: A governing party where the extremist loonies have too much influence, and a main opposition party where the extremist loonies are running it.

    We ended up here because David Cameron did not set up a commission to reify Brexit before the referendum, so the choice was between Remain and the moon on a stick.

    And because Theresa May similarly triggered Article 50 before defining Brexit.
  • Options

    stodge said:

    I suppose the high risk part of it is whether the EU will agree to a lengthy delay. If they won't or don't (and unlike Digby Jones I didn't go into this thinking the EU would roll over and give us everything we wanted - incredible he used to lead the CBI!!) the cliff edge looms.

    Digby “I know I’m right” Jones

    https://twitter.com/propertyspot/status/1095610368330731523?s=21

    It's because there are too many Lord Digby Jones's in British boardrooms that we have such dreadful productivity, low R&D investment & poor export performance. He's everything that's wrong with so many UK senior managers: unimaginative, overbearing, overpaid & unable to listen.

  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?

    I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.

    Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
    That 'almost certainly' excludes leaving on time I think ?
    I'm not sure. If the deal or a tweaked version does get agreed, I think we might nominally leave on time. Any loose ends on legislation (and there will be a hell of a lot) can probably be dealt with by a mixture of statutory instruments, fudging/turning a blind eye, and perhaps a couple of short bills basically saying everything continues as before. The political imperative to be able to say we left on time is quite important for the PM.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,190

    The first question to consider is when MPs are going to start panicking in numbers. It hasn't happened yet, but it probably will.

    The second question to consider is the order in which groups of MPs start panicking. That may make a big difference to the ultimate outcome.


    There is the possibility that rather than panic they are so frozen with fear and cowardice that they do nothing. And so no deal happens because that is what will happen unless..... and that unless never comes.

    MPs seem to me to be paralysed, willing to talk, willing to wound but afraid to strike. I don’t even think it is the backstop any more, if it ever was. It’s a combination of hatred of May’s secretive and authoritarian way of governing, the distateful need to appease the DUP and, indeed, think about Ireland’s needs at all (something the British have never been very good at), the Brexiteers’ realisation that this is not as easy as they thought and the realisation by everyone else that they are trapped into doing something they don’t believe in and they think wrong. Rather than admit this and speak up and take action which would put them in the firing line, they mutter and moan and complain and talk about alternative universes. But they are - basically - pulling the duvet over their heads and hoping that it will all go away.

    And if it doesn’t, they hope that they won’t individually be blamed - that, like the Assyrians, they can fold up their tents and creep away into the night.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,210

    Doesn't everyone scrape the mouldy bit off the top of the jam though? In what way is that unusual behaviour?

    I must admit I share your confusion. But it is an entertaining metaphor for her control of the Tory party. Regrettably, she is still scraping and the glass at the bottom is becoming visible.
  • Options
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,190

    FPT from Southam:


    ----------
    As Stereotomy says, the polling suggests that people really liked the 2017 manifesto, but Southam is right all the same - it wasn't especially left-wing in most respects, and someone like EdM could certainly have led on it. That said, people believe that JC would be left-wing (whether you like him or not, absolutely nobody thinks he's a secret centrist), and that gave leeway to have a fairly moderate programme without annoying the left. As Harold Wilson said, Labour is best run from the left for that reason.

    On some details I disagree with Southam's analysis - I'm convinced that being consistently critical of Israel is nothing to do with anti-semitism. I'm not a big fan of the great western alliance anyway, least of all with Trump leading it. And I'm a latter-day non-interventionist, after seeing the mess I helped create in Iraq. So for me and many members, most of JC's foreign policy is a plus, not something to overlook..

    But yes, if JC decided to move on I'd look at all contenders with a reasonably open mind, and that's quite common among members (though note that this is weaker than it would otherwise be because people like Southam have dropped out). I'd tend to exclude anyone who has been actively briefing against JC, but someone like Starmer would certainly be worth looking at.

    Ignoring the issue of Trump - he is hardly leading the Western alliance, he seems to despise it - why are you not a fan of the Western alliance? Do you think Britain should ally itself with others and, if so, who? Do you think Britain should leave Nato? And do what?

    And do you really think that Harold Wilson would have been content to have the party led by a man, one of whose closest advisers was a member of another party - the Communist Party - until very recently?
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Jimbo516 said:

    Still amazed at the odds available on leaving on March 29th - 9/4 on Betfair which seems pretty generous

    Punters got Brexit, Trump, GE2015 and GE2017 wrong. So why not this too?
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,847

    stodge said:

    I suppose the high risk part of it is whether the EU will agree to a lengthy delay. If they won't or don't (and unlike Digby Jones I didn't go into this thinking the EU would roll over and give us everything we wanted - incredible he used to lead the CBI!!) the cliff edge looms.

    Digby “I know I’m right” Jones

    https://twitter.com/propertyspot/status/1095610368330731523?s=21

    It's because there are too many Lord Digby Jones's in British boardrooms that we have such dreadful productivity, low R&D investment & poor export performance. He's everything that's wrong with so many UK senior managers: unimaginative, overbearing, overpaid & unable to listen.

    For sure.
    This is a great clip, full of micro-delights:

    - the bloated gammon blink of the interviewer
    - the bizarre way Jones pronounces Merkel as if referring to some kind of feminine hygiene product
    - the slight edge of disgust or mockery in his voice as he utters the word “Frenchman”.

    Digby Jones is poor British productivity in a fatsuit.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,847
    Cyclefree said:

    The first question to consider is when MPs are going to start panicking in numbers. It hasn't happened yet, but it probably will.

    The second question to consider is the order in which groups of MPs start panicking. That may make a big difference to the ultimate outcome.


    There is the possibility that rather than panic they are so frozen with fear and cowardice that they do nothing. And so no deal happens because that is what will happen unless..... and that unless never comes.

    MPs seem to me to be paralysed, willing to talk, willing to wound but afraid to strike. I don’t even think it is the backstop any more, if it ever was. It’s a combination of hatred of May’s secretive and authoritarian way of governing, the distateful need to appease the DUP and, indeed, think about Ireland’s needs at all (something the British have never been very good at), the Brexiteers’ realisation that this is not as easy as they thought and the realisation by everyone else that they are trapped into doing something they don’t believe in and they think wrong. Rather than admit this and speak up and take action which would put them in the firing line, they mutter and moan and complain and talk about alternative universes. But they are - basically - pulling the duvet over their heads and hoping that it will all go away.

    And if it doesn’t, they hope that they won’t individually be blamed - that, like the Assyrians, they can fold up their tents and creep away into the night.
    This is wonderful stuff. Someone should commission a piece.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?

    I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.

    Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
    That 'almost certainly' excludes leaving on time I think ?
    I'm not sure. If the deal or a tweaked version does get agreed, I think we might nominally leave on time. Any loose ends on legislation (and there will be a hell of a lot) can probably be dealt with by a mixture of statutory instruments, fudging/turning a blind eye, and perhaps a couple of short bills basically saying everything continues as before. The political imperative to be able to say we left on time is quite important for the PM.
    She really has needlessly boxed herself in.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,588

    Scott_P said:
    I've never seen mould on a jar of jam. Does the Prime Minister live in a cave?
    I'm surprised that, as a diabetic, the PM eats much jam. Diabetic jams surely shouldn't get mouldy that quickly.
    The secret of preseving is to have a sufficiently high osmotic gradient as to be toxic to micro-organisms. In Jam the sugar concentration is the critical factor. Low sugar jam may well therefore be more likely to go mouldy as artififial sweetners are much less osmotically effective.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,100
    edited February 2019

    What a mess. How did we end up here? Answer: A governing party where the extremist loonies have too much influence, and a main opposition party where the extremist loonies are running it.

    We ended up here because David Cameron did not set up a commission to reify Brexit before the referendum, so the choice was between Remain and the moon on a stick.

    And because Theresa May similarly triggered Article 50 before defining Brexit.
    Nobody seems to remember this: immediately after the Referendum result -

    https://labourlist.org/2016/06/corbyn-article-50-has-to-be-invoked-now/
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,190
    edited February 2019
    My apologies for a temporary lapse of judgment.

    Time for a coffee and a step outside. The weather is warming up and spring feels near. Hooray!

    PS Mould is very dangerous for dogs.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited February 2019
    Jonathan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?

    I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.

    Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
    That 'almost certainly' excludes leaving on time I think ?
    I'm not sure. If the deal or a tweaked version does get agreed, I think we might nominally leave on time. Any loose ends on legislation (and there will be a hell of a lot) can probably be dealt with by a mixture of statutory instruments, fudging/turning a blind eye, and perhaps a couple of short bills basically saying everything continues as before. The political imperative to be able to say we left on time is quite important for the PM.
    She really has needlessly boxed herself in.
    She's boxed in by factors beyond her control, most notably Labour's cynical collaboration with the ERG, and the manoeuvrings of those still hoping to reverse Brexit despite having voted for it and the referendum.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,914

    Pulpstar said:

    Using Betfair's two exit markets, we can calculate the implied probability of leaving with a deal on March 29th is 6%.
    Implied probability of leaving without a deal on March 29th is 24%.

    The no deal probability looks more or less right but if the Hoc is holding the meaningful vote the week of March 25 surely the probability of leaving with a deal by March 29 should be zero?
    Err I'm not so sure. There should be a way (I might work out the details later) to effectively lay the implied chance by appropriate stakes over both markets. However you stake it fundamentally laying a 6% probability won't really be a route to get rich quick - you need to be very confident indeed the probability of a deal exit on time is very close to zero, and as per Richard Nabavi's post it does look like there is a finite probability we leave on time with a deal.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,970
    Foxy said:

    Scott_P said:
    I've never seen mould on a jar of jam. Does the Prime Minister live in a cave?
    I'm surprised that, as a diabetic, the PM eats much jam. Diabetic jams surely shouldn't get mouldy that quickly.
    The secret of preseving is to have a sufficiently high osmotic gradient as to be toxic to micro-organisms. In Jam the sugar concentration is the critical factor. Low sugar jam may well therefore be more likely to go mouldy as artififial sweetners are much less osmotically effective.
    That's true. In one of my lives I sold diabetic jam. Never heard of it going mouldy, TBH, but I probably wouldn't unless it did so quickly.
  • Options
    _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,810

    stodge said:

    I suppose the high risk part of it is whether the EU will agree to a lengthy delay. If they won't or don't (and unlike Digby Jones I didn't go into this thinking the EU would roll over and give us everything we wanted - incredible he used to lead the CBI!!) the cliff edge looms.

    Digby “I know I’m right” Jones

    https://twitter.com/propertyspot/status/1095610368330731523?s=21

    It's because there are too many Lord Digby Jones's in British boardrooms that we have such dreadful productivity, low R&D investment & poor export performance. He's everything that's wrong with so many UK senior managers: unimaginative, overbearing, overpaid & unable to listen.

    For sure.
    This is a great clip, full of micro-delights:

    - the bloated gammon blink of the interviewer
    - the bizarre way Jones pronounces Merkel as if referring to some kind of feminine hygiene product
    - the slight edge of disgust or mockery in his voice as he utters the word “Frenchman”.

    Digby Jones is poor British productivity in a fatsuit.
    I had the misfortune to work alongside Jones for several events back when he was a Goat in the Labour administration. He was fairly unappealing and deeply unimpressive then, and it seems nothing much has changed in the passing years.
  • Options
    notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006
    Foxy said:

    Doesn't everyone scrape the mouldy bit off the top of the jam though? In what way is that unusual behaviour?

    Apart from meat, I have a healthy contempt for useby dates.

    Mould on jam does have fairly deep roots, so scrape deeply. Mould is not poisonous though, think of blue cheese.
    Meat is always a smell test. If it smells fine it’s fine. If it’s poultry and you get any whiff at all, bin it, wash hands thoroughly and clean that dish asap. Anything else is ok. Even if there’s on the verge, it’s fine to eat. Some meats last for ages in the fridge.
  • Options

    What a mess. How did we end up here? Answer: A governing party where the extremist loonies have too much influence, and a main opposition party where the extremist loonies are running it.

    We ended up here because David Cameron did not set up a commission to reify Brexit before the referendum, so the choice was between Remain and the moon on a stick.

    And because Theresa May similarly triggered Article 50 before defining Brexit.
    Nobody seems to remember this: immediately after the Referendum result -

    https://labourlist.org/2016/06/corbyn-article-50-has-to-be-invoked-now/
    Oh I remember, don't you worry. And I will not be forgetting any time soon.

    I'm sure I am not alone.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,190

    Jonathan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?

    I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.

    Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
    That 'almost certainly' excludes leaving on time I think ?
    I'm not sure. If the deal or a tweaked version does get agreed, I think we might nominally leave on time. Any loose ends on legislation (and there will be a hell of a lot) can probably be dealt with by a mixture of statutory instruments, fudging/turning a blind eye, and perhaps a couple of short bills basically saying everything continues as before. The political imperative to be able to say we left on time is quite important for the PM.
    She really has needlessly boxed herself in.
    She's boxed in by factors beyond her control, most notably Labour's cynical collaboration with the ERG, and the manoeuvrings of those still hoping to reverse Brexit despite having voted for it and the referendum.
    You keep saying this. You are too kind to her. Sure those are factors. But they were entirely predictable. She utterly failed to take any of these into account, ploughed her own solitary furrow without involving anyone else, refused to listen or to talk to anyone else, sacked or ignored those with knowledge and expertise who could have helped, showed a contempt for Parliament and is now reduced to talking about non-existent negotiations in a manner which, were she an ordinary member of the public, would have her family and friends wondering whether she needed professional help.

    She has utterly failed in basic political tradecraft.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,847
    There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.

    The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.

    All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,970
    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?

    I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.

    Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
    That 'almost certainly' excludes leaving on time I think ?
    I'm not sure. If the deal or a tweaked version does get agreed, I think we might nominally leave on time. Any loose ends on legislation (and there will be a hell of a lot) can probably be dealt with by a mixture of statutory instruments, fudging/turning a blind eye, and perhaps a couple of short bills basically saying everything continues as before. The political imperative to be able to say we left on time is quite important for the PM.
    She really has needlessly boxed herself in.
    She's boxed in by factors beyond her control, most notably Labour's cynical collaboration with the ERG, and the manoeuvrings of those still hoping to reverse Brexit despite having voted for it and the referendum.
    You keep saying this. You are too kind to her. Sure those are factors. But they were entirely predictable. She utterly failed to take any of these into account, ploughed her own solitary furrow without involving anyone else, refused to listen or to talk to anyone else, sacked or ignored those with knowledge and expertise who could have helped, showed a contempt for Parliament and is now reduced to talking about non-existent negotiations in a manner which, were she an ordinary member of the public, would have her family and friends wondering whether she needed professional help.

    She has utterly failed in basic political tradecraft.
    Worse she promoted and encouraged those who made wild promises.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,847
    edited February 2019

    What a mess. How did we end up here? Answer: A governing party where the extremist loonies have too much influence, and a main opposition party where the extremist loonies are running it.

    We ended up here because David Cameron did not set up a commission to reify Brexit before the referendum, so the choice was between Remain and the moon on a stick.

    And because Theresa May similarly triggered Article 50 before defining Brexit.
    Nobody seems to remember this: immediately after the Referendum result -

    https://labourlist.org/2016/06/corbyn-article-50-has-to-be-invoked-now/
    Oh I remember, don't you worry. And I will not be forgetting any time soon.

    I'm sure I am not alone.
    No, no, no. I will not forget.

    Like Rottenborough, Mr Foremain, and Cyclefree, I am from the PB wing that is apoplectic with rage at both May’s Tories *and* Corbyn’s Labour.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,189

    There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.

    The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.

    All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.

    The Tories won the election after the Poll Tax.
  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    You keep saying this. You are too kind to her. Sure those are factors. But they were entirely predictable. She utterly failed to take any of these into account, ploughed her own solitary furrow without involving anyone else, refused to listen or to talk to anyone else, sacked or ignored those with knowledge and expertise who could have helped, showed a contempt for Parliament and is now reduced to talking about non-existent negotiations in a manner which, were she an ordinary member of the public, would have her family and friends wondering whether she needed professional help.

    She has utterly failed in basic political tradecraft.

    I don't disagree. As I've posted before, her personality is completely unsuited to a hung parliament, and she's very poor at bringing people with her even when she's right.

    But that doesn't alter the fact that she is right that there's no alternative to the EU's deal. Crashing out is unthinkable, revocation would be a democratic outrage, and the EU won't budge. It really is as simple as that, and therefore the entire crisis - and it really is a crisis - is caused by MPs refusing, for contradictory and in some cases entirely cynical reasons, to ratify the deal which would avert the crisis. Yes, sure, if she had been defter and more skilled at stroking their egos and making them feel loved, she might have got more support from them. But they are not children, and this is a real-life crisis in which they should forget about whether they feel loved and just get on with ending the uncertainty and taking 'no deal' off the table in the only way available.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,847
    tlg86 said:

    There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.

    The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.

    All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.

    The Tories won the election after the Poll Tax.
    And so might these Tories, given Corbyn.
    But they’d lose the 4 or 5 after that.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,326
    Cyclefree said:



    Ignoring the issue of Trump - he is hardly leading the Western alliance, he seems to despise it - why are you not a fan of the Western alliance? Do you think Britain should ally itself with others and, if so, who? Do you think Britain should leave Nato? And do what?

    And do you really think that Harold Wilson would have been content to have the party led by a man, one of whose closest advisers was a member of another party - the Communist Party - until very recently?

    I think the record of the Western alliance is very mixed - we are basically what I think of as mostly goodish guys (liberal democracies), but we break our promises, interfere to oust unhelpful autocrats and then install more helpful autocrats, encourage insurrections and then abandon them when we get bored, and conduct major wars in order to prop up regimes of doubtful popularity or virtue who happen to be leaning our way. We betrayed Gorbachev by promising not to expand NATO to Russian borders and then doing it anyway; we encouraged Gaddhafi to give up WMD and then knifed him when the opportunity arose; etc etc. I don't see another alliance that we ought to embrace, and clearly France and Germany are more akin to us than, say, Russia and China, but critical membership of the Western alliance with some championing of third world interests feels about right.

    As a former Communist myself (like Denis Healey, who IIRC Wilson worked with without evident qualms) I'm the wrong person to grumble about other former Communists being involved - it really depends what they're like, and that applies to non-Communists too. I'd be appalled if Corbyn was being advised by Arthur Scargill, say.

    My views are pretty irrelevant these days, unless one thinks that Waverley Borough Council is potentially critically affected by my possible election to it. But with variations they're probably reasonably widely shared among members.
  • Options
    tlg86 said:

    There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.

    The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.

    All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.

    The Tories won the election after the Poll Tax.
    I thought it was Black Wednesday that shafted the Tories in 1992?
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,847

    Cyclefree said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?

    I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.

    Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
    That 'almost certainly' excludes leaving on time I think ?
    I'm not sure. If the deal or a tweaked version does get agreed, I think we might nominally leave on time. Any loose ends on legislation (and there will be a hell of a lot) can probably be dealt with by a mixture of statutory instruments, fudging/turning a blind eye, and perhaps a couple of short bills basically saying everything continues as before. The political imperative to be able to say we left on time is quite important for the PM.
    She really has needlessly boxed herself in.
    She's boxed in by factors beyond her control, most notably Labour's cynical collaboration with the ERG, and the manoeuvrings of those still hoping to reverse Brexit despite having voted for it and the referendum.
    You keep saying this. You are too kind to her. Sure those are factors. But they were entirely predictable. She utterly failed to take any of these into account, ploughed her own solitary furrow without involving anyone else, refused to listen or to talk to anyone else, sacked or ignored those with knowledge and expertise who could have helped, showed a contempt for Parliament and is now reduced to talking about non-existent negotiations in a manner which, were she an ordinary member of the public, would have her family and friends wondering whether she needed professional help.

    She has utterly failed in basic political tradecraft.
    Worse she promoted and encouraged those who made wild promises.
    Indeed. She has knowingly perpetuated a fraud on the public. She will not be forgiven.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,189

    tlg86 said:

    There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.

    The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.

    All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.

    The Tories won the election after the Poll Tax.
    I thought it was Black Wednesday that shafted the Tories in 1992?
    It was certainly more toxic to the Tories than the Community Charge.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?

    I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.

    Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
    That 'almost certainly' excludes leaving on time I think ?
    I'm not sure. If the deal or a tweaked version does get agreed, I think we might nominally leave on time. Any loose ends on legislation (and there will be a hell of a lot) can probably be dealt with by a mixture of statutory instruments, fudging/turning a blind eye, and perhaps a couple of short bills basically saying everything continues as before. The political imperative to be able to say we left on time is quite important for the PM.
    She really has needlessly boxed herself in.
    She's boxed in by factors beyond her control, most notably Labour's cynical collaboration with the ERG, and the manoeuvrings of those still hoping to reverse Brexit despite having voted for it and the referendum.
    That’s a bit weak. Her failure to bring her party with her is the root problem. Her choice to force others and not compromise was her second mistake. Her third mistake was not to learn from heavy defeat.

    The fact she is still trying to force her will is depressing beyond measure.
  • Options

    What a mess. How did we end up here? Answer: A governing party where the extremist loonies have too much influence, and a main opposition party where the extremist loonies are running it.

    We ended up here because David Cameron did not set up a commission to reify Brexit before the referendum, so the choice was between Remain and the moon on a stick.

    And because Theresa May similarly triggered Article 50 before defining Brexit.
    Nobody seems to remember this: immediately after the Referendum result -

    https://labourlist.org/2016/06/corbyn-article-50-has-to-be-invoked-now/
    Oh I remember, don't you worry. And I will not be forgetting any time soon.

    I'm sure I am not alone.
    I doubt it was a salient factor in Theresa May's decision-making process. It has nothing to do with how we got into our current state.
  • Options

    A delay is not an outcome. There's only 3 end states, revoke, some type of deal or no deal.

    A delay to kick the can further is pointless, why would anyone do this?

    Unless either the HoC or EU backs down, well, you get the idea.......

    Why would anyone do it? Well, there's no majority for Deal or Revoke, so until that changes the only end state is No Deal. This is really, really bad, so any government with self-preservation instincts will try to avoid getting to the end state for as long as possible, ideally until either something changes allowing one of the other two end states or the whole shitshow becomes somebody else's problem.
    The limit to the can kicking would presumably be the Euro elections.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,210

    Cyclefree said:

    You keep saying this. You are too kind to her. Sure those are factors. But they were entirely predictable. She utterly failed to take any of these into account, ploughed her own solitary furrow without involving anyone else, refused to listen or to talk to anyone else, sacked or ignored those with knowledge and expertise who could have helped, showed a contempt for Parliament and is now reduced to talking about non-existent negotiations in a manner which, were she an ordinary member of the public, would have her family and friends wondering whether she needed professional help.

    She has utterly failed in basic political tradecraft.

    I don't disagree. As I've posted before, her personality is completely unsuited to a hung parliament, and she's very poor at bringing people with her even when she's right.

    But that doesn't alter the fact that she is right that there's no alternative to the EU's deal. Crashing out is unthinkable, revocation would be a democratic outrage, and the EU won't budge. It really is as simple as that, and therefore the entire crisis - and it really is a crisis - is caused by MPs refusing, for contradictory and in some cases entirely cynical reasons, to ratify the deal which would avert the crisis. Yes, sure, if she had been defter and more skilled at stroking their egos and making them feel loved, she might have got more support from them. But they are not children, and this is a real-life crisis in which they should forget about whether they feel loved and just get on with ending the uncertainty and taking 'no deal' off the table in the only way available.
    I agree with this but I also think it is a compelling argument why fresh leadership is required before the FTA is negotiated.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,326
    BTW, what do Tory PBers make of this?

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/02/nick-boles-deselection-will-affect-more-just-future-tories

    Is he likely to be really at risk, or will the Powers That Be intervene?
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    That’s a bit weak. Her failure to bring her party with her is the root problem. Her choice to force others and not compromise was her second mistake. Her third mistake was not to learn from heavy defeat.

    The fact she is still trying to force her will is depressing beyond measure.

    She's trying to avoid catastrophe. If parliament can find a better course - not that there conceivably could be one at this stage - it could vote for it. It hasn't, and it won't. TINA.
  • Options
    anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,578

    What a mess. How did we end up here? Answer: A governing party where the extremist loonies have too much influence, and a main opposition party where the extremist loonies are running it.

    This has come about because both main parties decided to transfer the power to elect leaders from MPs to party members. Party members have no direct connection to voters, by their very nature they are untypical of the population at large and hold more definite and often more extreme political views than most people. Only a small minority of party members involve themselves in campaigning and encountering real electors. Most members have little idea of, or patience with, the compromises needed to govern in the interests of the whole country and not just a vocal minority. And these are the people to whom parties have entrusted the power to choose our prime minister.

    In the past the choice was made by MPs, who had been through both selection and election processes and who knew the candidates strengths and weaknesses from personal experience and who could, and often did, ignore the views of extremists in their constituencies. This system kept the extremist loonies in check. But now they have taken over and are destroying everything in their path.
    That does not explain Theresa May's leadership, who was not elected by the Tory Party members and had the largest number of MP nominations. Indeed she had an absolute majority of support from MPs in the first round of voting so would probably have become Conservative Party leader under any of the previous systems used to choose their leader.

    Maybe you could argue that it is only the fear of who the Party members would elect in a leadership ballot now that saved May in the confidence vote in December.
    Certainly that is a factor I think. There have been three leadship elections in the major parties conducted entirely by membership ballots and the victors were IDS, Cameron and Corbyn, all of whom ultimately proved to be disastrous failures. (Maybe premature to judge Corbyn but the omens are not encouraging).
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,847
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?

    I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.

    Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
    That 'almost certainly' excludes leaving on time I think ?
    I'm not sure. If the deal or a tweaked version does get agreed, I think we might nominally leave on time. Any loose ends on legislation (and there will be a hell of a lot) can probably be dealt with by a mixture of statutory instruments, fudging/turning a blind eye, and perhaps a couple of short bills basically saying everything continues as before. The political imperative to be able to say we left on time is quite important for the PM.
    She really has needlessly boxed herself in.
    She's boxed in by factors beyond her control, most notably Labour's cynical collaboration with the ERG, and the manoeuvrings of those still hoping to reverse Brexit despite having voted for it and the referendum.
    That’s a bit weak. Her failure to bring her party with her is the root problem. Her choice to force others and not compromise was her second mistake. Her third mistake was not to learn from heavy defeat.

    The fact she is still trying to force her will is depressing beyond measure.
    There was a way.

    It required accepting the results of the ref.
    Reaching out for cross-party consensus.
    Seeking the closest possible ties with the EU.
    Reassuring Remainers.
    Using the rhetoric of healing, not division.
    And keeping hold of the UK’s *only* leverage: timing.

    In the utter vacuum of leadership, the ERGers were given license to define increasingly more extreme Brexits. May piled on with divisive words of her own. She let Davis and Johnson indulge in their fantasies. And then she exercised Article 50, unilaterally defined her red lines, and the rest is history.

    This is May’s wholly-owned crisis.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,019
    edited February 2019
    glw said:

    DavidL said:

    And they are now apparently planning to wait until the week before. Really, they should be taken out and shot.

    There sure as hell would be a lot of volunteers willing to form the firing squad from Britain's businesses.
    Won't some of them be in front of the firing squad? In fact in the case of 'Baron' Digby, I'd be happy to take some advice from N.Korea on the format.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,847

    What a mess. How did we end up here? Answer: A governing party where the extremist loonies have too much influence, and a main opposition party where the extremist loonies are running it.

    This has come about because both main parties decided to transfer the power to elect leaders from MPs to party members. Party members have no direct connection to voters, by their very nature they are untypical of the population at large and hold more definite and often more extreme political views than most people. Only a small minority of party members involve themselves in campaigning and encountering real electors. Most members have little idea of, or patience with, the compromises needed to govern in the interests of the whole country and not just a vocal minority. And these are the people to whom parties have entrusted the power to choose our prime minister.

    In the past the choice was made by MPs, who had been through both selection and election processes and who knew the candidates strengths and weaknesses from personal experience and who could, and often did, ignore the views of extremists in their constituencies. This system kept the extremist loonies in check. But now they have taken over and are destroying everything in their path.
    That does not explain Theresa May's leadership, who was not elected by the Tory Party members and had the largest number of MP nominations. Indeed she had an absolute majority of support from MPs in the first round of voting so would probably have become Conservative Party leader under any of the previous systems used to choose their leader.

    Maybe you could argue that it is only the fear of who the Party members would elect in a leadership ballot now that saved May in the confidence vote in December.
    Certainly that is a factor I think. There have been three leadship elections in the major parties conducted entirely by membership ballots and the victors were IDS, Cameron and Corbyn, all of whom ultimately proved to be disastrous failures. (Maybe premature to judge Corbyn but the omens are not encouraging).
    Different kind of failures.
    Looked at in one way, all PMs and Leaders from 1997 have been “disastrous failures”, with the possible exception of Michael Howard!
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,985

    We betrayed Gorbachev by promising not to expand NATO to Russian borders and then doing it anyway;

    Who, exactly, made such a promise? The only treaty commitment made to Gorbachev was no foreign forces in the former East Germany when the unified Germany was inside NATO. He got nothing beyond that. The 'broken promise' is a myth stoked by Russia. If they didn't want their vassal states to switch sides as soon as they slipped the Soviet yoke then perhaps they should have been a bit less keen on totalitarian oppression, genocide and shoes made of cardboard.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,190
    edited February 2019

    Cyclefree said:



    Ignoring the issue of Trump - he is hardly leading the Western alliance, he seems to despise it - why are you not a fan of the Western alliance? Do you think Britain should ally itself with others and, if so, who? Do you think Britain should leave Nato? And do what?

    And do you really think that Harold Wilson would have been content to have the party led by a man, one of whose closest advisers was a member of another party - the Communist Party - until very recently?

    I think the record of the Western alliance is very mixed - we are basically what I think of as mostly goodish guys (liberal democracies), but we break our promises, interfere to oust unhelpful autocrats and then install more helpful autocrats, encourage insurrections and then abandon them when we get bored, and conduct major wars in order to prop up regimes of doubtful popularity or virtue who happen to be leaning our way. We betrayed Gorbachev by promising not to expand NATO to Russian borders and then doing it anyway; we encouraged Gaddhafi to give up WMD and then knifed him when the opportunity arose; etc etc. I don't see another alliance that we ought to embrace, and clearly France and Germany are more akin to us than, say, Russia and China, but critical membership of the Western alliance with some championing of third world interests feels about right.

    As a former Communist myself (like Denis Healey, who IIRC Wilson worked with without evident qualms) I'm the wrong person to grumble about other former Communists being involved - it really depends what they're like, and that applies to non-Communists too. I'd be appalled if Corbyn was being advised by Arthur Scargill, say.

    My views are pretty irrelevant these days, unless one thinks that Waverley Borough Council is potentially critically affected by my possible election to it. But with variations they're probably reasonably widely shared among members.
    Thanks.

    I don’t have a problem with a former Communist turning to Labour, especially when it was a long time ago a la Healey and you. You both supported and worked for the Labour party.

    But Corbyn is being advised by Andrew Murray, who was a Communist party member for 40 years and only stopped being a member in 2016. That seems to me to be different and very concerning.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,970
    tlg86 said:

    There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.

    The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.

    All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.

    The Tories won the election after the Poll Tax.
    Anyone would think that there was a consistent Tory philosophy, whereas in fact it's 'Power to Our Friends'. Corbyn and his friends have picked an excellent slogan in "For the Many not the Few' because that resonates with a very great number of the 'Methodist' tradition of the party, and with a great number of those outside.
  • Options
    EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    What a mess. How did we end up here? Answer: A governing party where the extremist loonies have too much influence, and a main opposition party where the extremist loonies are running it.

    This has come about because both main parties decided to transfer the power to elect leaders from MPs to party members. Party members have no direct connection to voters, by their very nature they are untypical of the population at large and hold more definite and often more extreme political views than most people. Only a small minority of party members involve themselves in campaigning and encountering real electors. Most members have little idea of, or patience with, the compromises needed to govern in the interests of the whole country and not just a vocal minority. And these are the people to whom parties have entrusted the power to choose our prime minister.

    In the past the choice was made by MPs, who had been through both selection and election processes and who knew the candidates strengths and weaknesses from personal experience and who could, and often did, ignore the views of extremists in their constituencies. This system kept the extremist loonies in check. But now they have taken over and are destroying everything in their path.
    That does not explain Theresa May's leadership, who was not elected by the Tory Party members and had the largest number of MP nominations. Indeed she had an absolute majority of support from MPs in the first round of voting so would probably have become Conservative Party leader under any of the previous systems used to choose their leader.

    Maybe you could argue that it is only the fear of who the Party members would elect in a leadership ballot now that saved May in the confidence vote in December.
    Certainly that is a factor I think. There have been three leadship elections in the major parties conducted entirely by membership ballots and the victors were IDS, Cameron and Corbyn, all of whom ultimately proved to be disastrous failures. (Maybe premature to judge Corbyn but the omens are not encouraging).
    Neither IDS nor Cameron was elected based "entirely on membership ballots" - the Tory leadership elections are designed specifically to stop Corbyn-like candidates getting to the final 2. In addition, I don't think you can describe Cameron as ultimately proving to be a disastrous failure, except in the context that almost all political leaders' careers ultimately end in disastrous failure.
  • Options

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?

    I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.

    Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
    That 'almost certainly' excludes leaving on time I think ?
    I'm not sure. If the deal or a tweaked version does get agreed, I think we might nominally leave on time. Any loose ends on legislation (and there will be a hell of a lot) can probably be dealt with by a mixture of statutory instruments, fudging/turning a blind eye, and perhaps a couple of short bills basically saying everything continues as before. The political imperative to be able to say we left on time is quite important for the PM.
    She really has needlessly boxed herself in.
    She's boxed in by factors beyond her control, most notably Labour's cynical collaboration with the ERG, and the manoeuvrings of those still hoping to reverse Brexit despite having voted for it and the referendum.
    That’s a bit weak. Her failure to bring her party with her is the root problem. Her choice to force others and not compromise was her second mistake. Her third mistake was not to learn from heavy defeat.

    The fact she is still trying to force her will is depressing beyond measure.
    There was a way.

    It required accepting the results of the ref.
    Reaching out for cross-party consensus.
    Seeking the closest possible ties with the EU.
    Reassuring Remainers.
    Using the rhetoric of healing, not division.
    And keeping hold of the UK’s *only* leverage: timing.

    In the utter vacuum of leadership, the ERGers were given license to define increasingly more extreme Brexits. May piled on with divisive words of her own. She let Davis and Johnson indulge in their fantasies. And then she exercised Article 50, unilaterally defined her red lines, and the rest is history.

    This is May’s wholly-owned crisis.
    Your argument she exercised A50 is of course inaccurate in so far as 498 mps instructed A50 to be exercised with default no deal. You can say they didn't know what they were doing but the HOC voted for the action by a large margin. A50 was also served a long time after Corbyn had demanded it to be served
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,494

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?

    I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.

    Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
    That 'almost certainly' excludes leaving on time I think ?
    I'm not sure. If the deal or a tweaked version does get agreed, I think we might nominally leave on time is quite important for the PM.
    She really has needlessly boxed herself in.
    She's boxed in by factors beyond her control, most notably Labour's cynical collaboration with the ERG, and the manoeuvrings of those still hoping to reverse Brexit despite having voted for it and the referendum.
    That’s a bit weak. Her failure to bring her party with her is the root problem. Her choice to force others and not compromise was her second mistake. Her third mistake was not to learn from heavy defeat.

    The fact she is still trying to force her will is depressing beyond measure.
    There was a way.

    It required accepting the results of the ref.
    Reaching out for cross-party consensus.
    Seeking the closest possible ties with the EU.
    Reassuring Remainers.
    Using the rhetoric of healing, not division.
    And keeping hold of the UK’s *only* leverage: timing.

    In the utter vacuum of leadership, the ERGers were given license to define increasingly more extreme Brexits. May piled on with divisive words of her own. She let Davis and Johnson indulge in their fantasies. And then she exercised Article 50, unilaterally defined her red lines, and the rest is history.

    This is May’s wholly-owned crisis.
    Your argument she exercised A50 is of course inaccurate in so far as 498 mps instructed A50 to be exercised with default no deal. You can say they didn't know what they were doing but the HOC voted for the action by a large margin. A50 was also served a long time after Corbyn had demanded it to be served
    But the rest pretty well correct.

  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,190

    Cyclefree said:

    You keep saying this. You are too kind to her. Sure those are factors. But they were entirely predictable. She utterly failed to take any of these into account, ploughed her own solitary furrow without involving anyone else, refused to listen or to talk to anyone else, sacked or ignored those with knowledge and expertise who could have helped, showed a contempt for Parliament and is now reduced to talking about non-existent negotiations in a manner which, were she an ordinary member of the public, would have her family and friends wondering whether she needed professional help.

    She has utterly failed in basic political tradecraft.

    I don't disagree. As I've posted before, her personality is completely unsuited to a hung parliament, and she's very poor at bringing people with her even when she's right.

    But that doesn't alter the fact that she is right that there's no alternative to the EU's deal. Crashing out is unthinkable, revocation would be a democratic outrage, and the EU won't budge. It really is as simple as that, and therefore the entire crisis - and it really is a crisis - is caused by MPs refusing, for contradictory and in some cases entirely cynical reasons, to ratify the deal which would avert the crisis. Yes, sure, if she had been defter and more skilled at stroking their egos and making them feel loved, she might have got more support from them. But they are not children, and this is a real-life crisis in which they should forget about whether they feel loved and just get on with ending the uncertainty and taking 'no deal' off the table in the only way available.

    It’s not a question of making MPs feel loved or stroking their egos. She utterly failed to take account of anyone’s views other than her own - or rather whoever wrote her speeches for her in June 2016 and later to the Tory conference.

    And a second referendum to get people’s consent or not to this deal is not a democratic outrage. It is an obvious option. It is one she has ruled out. Why? Because she cares more about sticking to a date (talk about focusing on the unimportant) and because she is a bully who thinks that getting her own way is the only thing that matters. A deal that she bullies Parliament into accepting out of fear will not stick. It simply means that the arguments will continue elsewhere and the lack of real consent to what she is doing will continue to poison British politics.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,970

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?

    .

    Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
    That 'almost certainly' excludes leaving on time I think ?
    Any loose ends on legislation (and there will be a hell of a lot) can probably be dealt with by a mixture of statutory instruments, fudging/turning a blind eye, and perhaps a couple of short bills basically saying everything continues as before. The political imperative to be able to say we left on time is quite important for the PM.
    She really has needlessly boxed herself in.
    She's boxed in by factors beyond her control, most notably Labour's cynical collaboration with the ERG, and the manoeuvrings of those still hoping to reverse Brexit despite having voted for it and the referendum.
    That’s a bit weak. Her failure to bring her party with her is the root problem. Her choice to force others and not compromise was her second mistake. Her third mistake was not to learn from heavy defeat.

    The fact she is still trying to force her will is depressing beyond measure.
    There was a way.

    It required accepting the results of the ref.
    Reaching out for cross-party consensus.
    Seeking the closest possible ties with the EU.
    Reassuring Remainers.
    Using the rhetoric of healing, not division.
    And keeping hold of the UK’s *only* leverage: timing.

    In the utter vacuum of leadership, the ERGers were given license to define increasingly more extreme Brexits. May piled on with divisive words of her own. She let Davis and Johnson indulge in their fantasies. And then she exercised Article 50, unilaterally defined her red lines, and the rest is history.

    This is May’s wholly-owned crisis.
    Your argument she exercised A50 is of course inaccurate in so far as 498 mps instructed A50 to be exercised with default no deal. You can say they didn't know what they were doing but the HOC voted for the action by a large margin. A50 was also served a long time after Corbyn had demanded it to be served
    I suppose it's arguable that in exercising A50 she was aiming for cross-party consensus, in that Labour (generally) voted for it too.
    However after that she made little or no attempt to consider the views of anyone except the ERG and the DUP, assuming that the bulk of the Tories would follow their Leader.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,133
    edited February 2019
    Big G. The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 consists of two clauses giving the Prime Minister the power to activate Article 50. The fact that Theresa May chose to do that on 29 March 2017 was wholly up to her. The Act of Parliament gave her complete discretion as to timing. She chose to exercise it when she did and created this mess.

    The operative provisions of the entire act read as follows -

    Power to notify withdrawal from the EU
    (1)The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.
    (2)This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,494
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    You keep saying this. You are too kind to her. Sure those are factors. But they were entirely predictable. She utterly failed to take any of these into account, ploughed her own solitary furrow without involving anyone else, refused to listen or to talk to anyone else, sacked or ignored those with knowledge and expertise who could have helped, showed a contempt for Parliament and is now reduced to talking about non-existent negotiations in a manner which, were she an ordinary member of the public, would have her family and friends wondering whether she needed professional help.

    She has utterly failed in basic political tradecraft.

    I don't disagree. As I've posted before, her personality is completely unsuited to a hung parliament, and she's very poor at bringing people with her even when she's right.

    But that doesn't alter the fact that she is right that there's no alternative to the EU's deal. Crashing out is unthinkable, revocation would be a democratic outrage, and the EU won't budge. It really is as simple as that, and therefore the entire crisis - and it really is a crisis - is caused by MPs refusing, for contradictory and in some cases entirely cynical reasons, to ratify the deal which would avert the crisis. Yes, sure, if she had been defter and more skilled at stroking their egos and making them feel loved, she might have got more support from them. But they are not children, and this is a real-life crisis in which they should forget about whether they feel loved and just get on with ending the uncertainty and taking 'no deal' off the table in the only way available.

    It’s not a question of making MPs feel loved or stroking their egos. She utterly failed to take account of anyone’s views other than her own - or rather whoever wrote her speeches for her in June 2016 and later to the Tory conference.

    And a second referendum to get people’s consent or not to this deal is not a democratic outrage. It is an obvious option. It is one she has ruled out. Why? Because she cares more about sticking to a date (talk about focusing on the unimportant) and because she is a bully who thinks that getting her own way is the only thing that matters. A deal that she bullies Parliament into accepting out of fear will not stick. It simply means that the arguments will continue elsewhere and the lack of real consent to what she is doing will continue to poison British politics.
    Agreed.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,118

    Cyclefree said:

    You keep saying this. You are too kind to her. Sure those are factors. But they were entirely predictable. She utterly failed to take any of these into account, ploughed her own solitary furrow without involving anyone else, refused to listen or to talk to anyone else, sacked or ignored those with knowledge and expertise who could have helped, showed a contempt for Parliament and is now reduced to talking about non-existent negotiations in a manner which, were she an ordinary member of the public, would have her family and friends wondering whether she needed professional help.

    She has utterly failed in basic political tradecraft.

    I don't disagree. As I've posted before, her personality is completely unsuited to a hung parliament, and she's very poor at bringing people with her even when she's right.

    But that doesn't alter the fact that she is right that there's no alternative to the EU's deal. Crashing out is unthinkable, revocation would be a democratic outrage, and the EU won't budge. It really is as simple as that, and therefore the entire crisis - and it really is a crisis - is caused by MPs refusing, for contradictory and in some cases entirely cynical reasons, to ratify the deal which would avert the crisis. Yes, sure, if she had been defter and more skilled at stroking their egos and making them feel loved, she might have got more support from them. But they are not children, and this is a real-life crisis in which they should forget about whether they feel loved and just get on with ending the uncertainty and taking 'no deal' off the table in the only way available.
    Yes. I'm surprised that so many fantasy scenarios are still being paraded. We're only 6 weeks from the deadline now. Unless the EU is prepared to "go back to square one", there's a simple choice: Deal (perhaps with some cosmetic changes to the political declaration), No Deal or Revocation. I don't think the EU will be prepared to go back to square one.
  • Options
    StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    Cyclefree said:

    You keep saying this. You are too kind to her. Sure those are factors. But they were entirely predictable. She utterly failed to take any of these into account, ploughed her own solitary furrow without involving anyone else, refused to listen or to talk to anyone else, sacked or ignored those with knowledge and expertise who could have helped, showed a contempt for Parliament and is now reduced to talking about non-existent negotiations in a manner which, were she an ordinary member of the public, would have her family and friends wondering whether she needed professional help.

    She has utterly failed in basic political tradecraft.

    I don't disagree. As I've posted before, her personality is completely unsuited to a hung parliament, and she's very poor at bringing people with her even when she's right.

    But that doesn't alter the fact that she is right that there's no alternative to the EU's deal. Crashing out is unthinkable, revocation would be a democratic outrage, and the EU won't budge. It really is as simple as that, and therefore the entire crisis - and it really is a crisis - is caused by MPs refusing, for contradictory and in some cases entirely cynical reasons, to ratify the deal which would avert the crisis. Yes, sure, if she had been defter and more skilled at stroking their egos and making them feel loved, she might have got more support from them. But they are not children, and this is a real-life crisis in which they should forget about whether they feel loved and just get on with ending the uncertainty and taking 'no deal' off the table in the only way available.
    What do you mean "she is right that there's no alternative to the EU's deal"? She spent about a year pledging to get an alternative, triumphantly declared she had one in the form of Chequers without bothering to ask the EU if they agreed, spent a 2 month spell declaring that there's no alternative when it was the only possible argument she could come up with for her deal, and has now pivoted back to trying to get an alternative again. All the ERG are guilty of is taking her at her word
  • Options
    notme2notme2 Posts: 1,006
    Dura_Ace said:

    We betrayed Gorbachev by promising not to expand NATO to Russian borders and then doing it anyway;

    Who, exactly, made such a promise? The only treaty commitment made to Gorbachev was no foreign forces in the former East Germany when the unified Germany was inside NATO. He got nothing beyond that. The 'broken promise' is a myth stoked by Russia. If they didn't want their vassal states to switch sides as soon as they slipped the Soviet yoke then perhaps they should have been a bit less keen on totalitarian oppression, genocide and shoes made of cardboard.
    Ouch... burn.
This discussion has been closed.