RugbyRebels

So Labour just needs to get 69 of the 117 to vote with them on a vote of no confidence and May is out as PM anyway, right?

Lizard wrote:So Labour just needs to get 69 of the 117 to vote with them on a vote of no confidence and May is out as PM anyway, right?

Mathematically yes.

But if your enemy is trying to tear itself apart the best option may well be to simply keep out of the way for a little while.

I think that labour’s only chance of winning an election is by offering to cancel/postpone brexit, and they can only do that if the only other option is hard brexit. They know full well that a large number of traditional labour seats supported leave. I’m still not sure they can win an outright majority in the current climate and this is the sort of pass the parcel you try not to be holding when the music stops. Boris was quiet yesterday wasn’t he.

There’s also that most of the Labour leadership would rather be out of the EU and that Brexit is a decent way down their priorities when compared to their plans for the economy. Their preferred option is to wait until after Brexit happens, so they can blame the Conservatives for it all, and then getting in to power to take us back to the 70’s. Which really is the worst of both worlds.

Mellsblue wrote:There’s also that most of the Labour leadership would rather be out of the EU and that Brexit is a decent way down their priorities when compared to their plans for the economy. Their preferred option is to wait until after Brexit happens, so they can blame the Conservatives for it all, and then getting in to power to take us back to the 70’s. Which really is the worst of both worlds.

I can only see a vote of no confidence in the government happening before the 29th of March. Tory MPs won't vote against the government so it will be the back stop issue and the DUP who will lend their support to force a general election. At that point the only issue will be the path of brexit and JC will need to finally nail his colours to the wall. I think there is even a chance that someone like Keir Stamer may end up leading labour towards a "remainers brexit" whatever that may look like. As you say, Jeremy is no fan of the EU and fighting an election against the tories by looking to leave seems pretty pointless.

Is it possible to put a general election and a 2nd referendum on the same ballot paper?

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:There’s also that most of the Labour leadership would rather be out of the EU and that Brexit is a decent way down their priorities when compared to their plans for the economy. Their preferred option is to wait until after Brexit happens, so they can blame the Conservatives for it all, and then getting in to power to take us back to the 70’s. Which really is the worst of both worlds.

I can only see a vote of no confidence in the government happening before the 29th of March. Tory MPs won't vote against the government so it will be the back stop issue and the DUP who will lend their support to force a general election. At that point the only issue will be the path of brexit and JC will need to finally nail his colours to the wall. I think there is even a chance that someone like Keir Stamer may end up leading labour towards a "remainers brexit" whatever that may look like. As you say, Jeremy is no fan of the EU and fighting an election against the tories by looking to leave seems pretty pointless.

Is it possible to put a general election and a 2nd referendum on the same ballot paper?

DUP have akready said they will vote against the withdrawal agreement but support Cons in a no confidence vote. All they care about, in this context, is keeping NI in the UK. As Corbyn is in favour of a united Ireland there is no way he would get DUP support.

No reason to not have both on the ballet paper, as far as I know, but you may end up with a govt who promised Brexit in their manifesto and Remain winning the referendum or vice versa. That is probably the natural and correct conclusion to the last couple of years, though.

Interesting thoughts on a 2nd vote https://newrepublic.com/article/152652/ ... referendum

"Asking citizens to vote directly on a 585-page, technically complicated and legally baffling document is far from a perfect way to govern. But the UK’s political representatives have also proven themselves to be far from perfect. What brought them to the current gridlock in the first place might be the only way out: If the government really believes that the first referendum was the purest expression of democracy and the will of people, there is no reason not to hold another one".

fivepointer wrote:Interesting thoughts on a 2nd vote https://newrepublic.com/article/152652/ ... referendum

"Asking citizens to vote directly on a 585-page, technically complicated and legally baffling document is far from a perfect way to govern. But the UK’s political representatives have also proven themselves to be far from perfect. What brought them to the current gridlock in the first place might be the only way out: If the government really believes that the first referendum was the purest expression of democracy and the will of people, there is no reason not to hold another one".

Heaven forbid we are trusted to read a document and make a judgement. We can't possibly come up with a suitable decision based on that.

Of course it makes a fuck of a lot more sense doing that than forcing the country to follow the results of a vote taken before the document was even written.

I can see why Labour are trying to hold back at the moment, but I'm not sure its a good idea for them. A messy Brexit will prevent Labour from carrying out their plans for the economy and its quite possible the parcel will blow them up anyway. The point of leaders is that they should step in and take the parcel and change the game and I'm not sure how forgiving Labour's very pro-EU membership are going to be about the lack of leadership. Or the various other left wing parties he might have to turn to for a Confidence and Supply/Coalition.

I think most people understand that Corbyn has a tricky hand to play reconciling the desires of Hampsted with Hartlepool but at some point he has to stand for something. Its possible that he is pissing away his best moment to take a stand here.

edit: Its also possible that the best moment will be when the postponed vote is held mind.

For Corbyn being ideologically pure is far more important than it is for McDonnell, John wants to get into No. 11 and start implementing some changes, Jeremy is content discussing the great vision with those who agree with him

Digby wrote:For Corbyn being ideologically pure is far more important than it is for McDonnell, John wants to get into No. 11 and start implementing some changes, Jeremy is content discussing the great vision with those who agree with him

Nitpicking somewhat, but I don't think that its that being ideologically pure is more important to Corbyn or that he's less interested in power so much as he's not as clever at recognising when he has to compromise. Amounts to the same thing right now, but if someone finally persuades him that this is the only way to beat the Tories, then he'll be all over it.

It's just quite sad, isn't it...

A competent Labour (and we haven't had one of them for years) would be able to win votes by highlighting some truths and turning them around back on the government.

Asking questions like: When was the last time you had a payrise?

Commenting on increased costs.

Leaving the working people, the people who make Britain Great, out of pocket.

And putting more power in the pockets of those born into power. People like Boris and the Burlingham club. Or JRM and his London elite father. etc.,etc.

And Brexit will just result in increased prices. For fuel. For food. For clothes...

I mean, that seems like an entirely sensible plan of attack but we've not seen a Labour government really go all out down that road for a long, long time.

It wouldn’t even take a competent Labour, Ed Miliband would stroll to an election win

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:There’s also that most of the Labour leadership would rather be out of the EU and that Brexit is a decent way down their priorities when compared to their plans for the economy. Their preferred option is to wait until after Brexit happens, so they can blame the Conservatives for it all, and then getting in to power to take us back to the 70’s. Which really is the worst of both worlds.

I can only see a vote of no confidence in the government happening before the 29th of March. Tory MPs won't vote against the government so it will be the back stop issue and the DUP who will lend their support to force a general election. At that point the only issue will be the path of brexit and JC will need to finally nail his colours to the wall. I think there is even a chance that someone like Keir Stamer may end up leading labour towards a "remainers brexit" whatever that may look like. As you say, Jeremy is no fan of the EU and fighting an election against the tories by looking to leave seems pretty pointless.

Is it possible to put a general election and a 2nd referendum on the same ballot paper?

DUP have akready said they will vote against the withdrawal agreement but support Cons in a no confidence vote. All they care about, in this context, is keeping NI in the UK. As Corbyn is in favour of a united Ireland there is no way he would get DUP support.

No reason to not have both on the ballet paper, as far as I know, but you may end up with a govt who promised Brexit in their manifesto and Remain winning the referendum or vice versa. That is probably the natural and correct conclusion to the last couple of years, though.

Isn't it possible to make the bill for the Withdrawal Agreement a Confidence vote also? Isn't that what Major did with the Maastricht Agreement Bill?
Those would force the hand of the DUP and the Tory Brexit hardliners.
Of course, the potential downside is absolute chaos.

Stones of granite wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:
I can only see a vote of no confidence in the government happening before the 29th of March. Tory MPs won't vote against the government so it will be the back stop issue and the DUP who will lend their support to force a general election. At that point the only issue will be the path of brexit and JC will need to finally nail his colours to the wall. I think there is even a chance that someone like Keir Stamer may end up leading labour towards a "remainers brexit" whatever that may look like. As you say, Jeremy is no fan of the EU and fighting an election against the tories by looking to leave seems pretty pointless.

Is it possible to put a general election and a 2nd referendum on the same ballot paper?

DUP have akready said they will vote against the withdrawal agreement but support Cons in a no confidence vote. All they care about, in this context, is keeping NI in the UK. As Corbyn is in favour of a united Ireland there is no way he would get DUP support.

No reason to not have both on the ballet paper, as far as I know, but you may end up with a govt who promised Brexit in their manifesto and Remain winning the referendum or vice versa. That is probably the natural and correct conclusion to the last couple of years, though.

Isn't it possible to make the bill for the Withdrawal Agreement a Confidence vote also? Isn't that what Major did with the Maastricht Agreement Bill?
Those would force the hand of the DUP and the Tory Brexit hardliners.
Of course, the potential downside is absolute chaos.

The fixed term parliament act changed what can be a confidence motion, so no is the simple answer

Stones of granite wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:
I can only see a vote of no confidence in the government happening before the 29th of March. Tory MPs won't vote against the government so it will be the back stop issue and the DUP who will lend their support to force a general election. At that point the only issue will be the path of brexit and JC will need to finally nail his colours to the wall. I think there is even a chance that someone like Keir Stamer may end up leading labour towards a "remainers brexit" whatever that may look like. As you say, Jeremy is no fan of the EU and fighting an election against the tories by looking to leave seems pretty pointless.

Is it possible to put a general election and a 2nd referendum on the same ballot paper?

DUP have akready said they will vote against the withdrawal agreement but support Cons in a no confidence vote. All they care about, in this context, is keeping NI in the UK. As Corbyn is in favour of a united Ireland there is no way he would get DUP support.

No reason to not have both on the ballet paper, as far as I know, but you may end up with a govt who promised Brexit in their manifesto and Remain winning the referendum or vice versa. That is probably the natural and correct conclusion to the last couple of years, though.

Isn't it possible to make the bill for the Withdrawal Agreement a Confidence vote also? Isn't that what Major did with the Maastricht Agreement Bill?
Those would force the hand of the DUP and the Tory Brexit hardliners.
Of course, the potential downside is absolute chaos.

I think we’ve reached absolute chaos already!

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: DUP have akready said they will vote against the withdrawal agreement but support Cons in a no confidence vote. All they care about, in this context, is keeping NI in the UK. As Corbyn is in favour of a united Ireland there is no way he would get DUP support.

No reason to not have both on the ballet paper, as far as I know, but you may end up with a govt who promised Brexit in their manifesto and Remain winning the referendum or vice versa. That is probably the natural and correct conclusion to the last couple of years, though.

Isn't it possible to make the bill for the Withdrawal Agreement a Confidence vote also? Isn't that what Major did with the Maastricht Agreement Bill?
Those would force the hand of the DUP and the Tory Brexit hardliners.
Of course, the potential downside is absolute chaos.

The fixed term parliament act changed what can be a confidence motion, so no is the simple answer

It doesn't appear to be that clear cut, though. While trying to establish whether or not this is the case, I stumbled across the following.

The Prime Minister’s ability to call an early general following a defeat in the House of
Commons is curtailed. There is now a statutory procedure for triggering an early general
election.
The consequences of a government losing what would have been considered a question of
confidence before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act have not been tested since the act was
passed.

Digby wrote:It wouldn’t even take a competent Labour, Ed Miliband would stroll to an election win

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Isn't it possible to make the bill for the Withdrawal Agreement a Confidence vote also? Isn't that what Major did with the Maastricht Agreement Bill?
Those would force the hand of the DUP and the Tory Brexit hardliners.
Of course, the potential downside is absolute chaos.

The fixed term parliament act changed what can be a confidence motion, so no is the simple answer

It doesn't appear to be that clear cut, though. While trying to establish whether or not this is the case, I stumbled across the following.

The Prime Minister’s ability to call an early general following a defeat in the House of
Commons is curtailed. There is now a statutory procedure for triggering an early general
election.
The consequences of a government losing what would have been considered a question of
confidence before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act have not been tested since the act was
passed.

My understanding is if they lose a specific motion of confidence there are 14 days to correct that or we're into a general election, it is though a bit messy as to who gets what chance to prove they've the votes in those 14 days, the government can give itself a shot but there’s nothing forcing them to give the opposition a shot vs just running down the clock for an election, which might leave the Queen in a very tricky position were the opposition to claim they'd got the votes

Otherwise we wait five years between elections unless parliament is given the chance to hold an early election and votes for just that, as we saw with the last election

There's very possibly something I've missed having no legal training and being an idiot, but it seems simple enough. At this point the FTPA looks a little unecessary , though I can see why the coalition wanted to give some certainty at the time they brought it in

fivepointer wrote:Interesting thoughts on a 2nd vote https://newrepublic.com/article/152652/ ... referendum

"Asking citizens to vote directly on a 585-page, technically complicated and legally baffling document is far from a perfect way to govern. But the UK’s political representatives have also proven themselves to be far from perfect. What brought them to the current gridlock in the first place might be the only way out: If the government really believes that the first referendum was the purest expression of democracy and the will of people, there is no reason not to hold another one".

Would you rather have a vote based on a 585-page document, or one based on one side of a bus?

Ivor the Engine speaks

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13 ... on-brexit/

Well worth a read, even if it takes a good few minutes

Rodgers is bang on.

This is worth a watch too. Stewart is a sensible, reasonable Tory who is far more interesting and intelligent that the ERG loons who are repeatedly trotted out.

Digby wrote:Ivor the Engine speaks

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13 ... on-brexit/

Well worth a read, even if it takes a good few minutes

Every one that voted for brexit should be forced to read this twice with an exam at the end.

twitchy wrote:

Digby wrote:Ivor the Engine speaks

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13 ... on-brexit/

Well worth a read, even if it takes a good few minutes

Every one that voted for brexit should be forced to read this twice with an exam at the end.

There are some pointed remarks directed at remainers too

It really is a tour de force. It should be required reading for everyone who is involved with, or has an interest in politics.

Nice bonus at the end with another incisive commentary from the brilliant Michael Dougan.