UKH

Straw poll...... Irrespective of your own political affiliations, which of the candidates would you prefer? You  may loathe them all, and Tories in general, but you have to pick one ....... no reason needed.

Me ... Rory Stewart

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Andrea Leadsom.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

It’s a bit like asking which toilet bowl I’d like to drink from. I guess Stewart. It’s got so bad Hunt seems one of the more sensible options.

In reply to David Riley:

I quite like the idea of obliterating the Tory Party as well.

In reply to The New NickB:

Quite.  I was thinking of 'which severe gastro-intestinal complaint would you like to suffer from in the middle of a long-haul flight?' as an analogy.  Striking that we both went for something unpleasantly lavatorial.

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

Is Stewart really much worse than a prolonged, possibly fruity, burp?

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Stewart, largely because he appear considerably less delusional than the others. On the other hand, he's obviously sufficiently delusional to believe he's in with a chance, so perhaps my first argument doesn't really stand. 

I despair ...

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Rory Stewart. 

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

I can't really decide, it's like a Smor-godawfuls-bord of poo pies. So, my brain inverts the question. Look at the precedent set by Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, May. And ask yourself..

Who would you like to see, in a few years,  shuffling out of office, haggard, humiliated, despised by the nation and an abject failure, possibly even weeping wretched salty tears in public?

And it seems almost fun.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Why hasn't the Honorable Gentleman for the 18th Century applied for the job?

He fought hard to get rid of the PM.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Can't stand any of them, but if pushed I'd go Jeremy Hunt.  

Judgement may be swayed by the fact I put 20 quid on him being the next leader a few months back.  Just because it never seems to be the front runners who get it in the end. 

Part of me thinks that Gove and Boris, although both have a good number of supporters, have a good deal of detractors too.  Put those two aside and Hunt's your man?

Cosmic.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

I was going to ask which jobby sandwich would you like. A continuation of the theme really.

Rory Stewart but he's got absolutely no chance.

Sajiv David would be a realistic choice and a wise one for the tories as he's less despised than the rest of them.

In reply to DerwentDiluted:

It's unworthy I know, but I'm rather hoping one of the assassination attempts will be successful.

In reply to Removed User:

Something about Javid makes me think the membership won’t go for him. Can’t think what it is!

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Harper. Although if it was Rory Stewart, at least I'd have the honour of voting against a PM at the next election.

In reply to Bellie:

I think I would least hate Rory as PM, but I fear that the last 2 will be Hunt and Johnson, and the Tory membership will choose Boris

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Boris. Then we can watch them tear themselves asunder and have a general election.

Raab might achieve this quicker but even the party membership aren't going to vote for a cyborg killing machine.

In reply to Removed User:

Something about Sajiv Javid bothers me, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

https://i.imgur.com/pulHkFk.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/zLA1lWz.jpg

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

They're all utterly awful, apart from Rory the Tory, who is merely awful.

So him, I suppose.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Isn't it so depressing that out of a large field there is NO candidate that inspires widespread confidence among the Tory faithful ( if any still exist) let alone the general population?

The Labour party is little better with a dreadful front bench and Libdems are waiting on a leader too.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Surprised nobody has mentioned the intellectual heavyweight that is Esther McVey. 

In reply to The New NickB:

Only if they’d all got shit in them. 

In reply to skog:

But has anybody read his book, lodged with the climbing section at Waterstones today.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Stewart - although I don't think his pitch is really aimed at this election.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

 I get a vote (between two) as I saw this coming and have been paying £2/month for  six months.  I'll be the UKC delegate and vote Stewart if he makes the final, or come back for further instructions if not.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Rory Stewart, although his plan is to take another run at getting May's withdrawal agreement through which is arguably as bonkers as some of the other 'plans' available.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I've met Ms McVey. I wasn't impressed.

If that's the choice of the Conservative party then they, and the country, are <word deleted. It rhymes with ducked>.

T.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

As he will be very aware, such a plan is doomed to failure, so with any luck he's being smart and playing a longer game that involves some subsequent alternative, possibly another referendum. For that slim hope alone he would get my vote, since all the others seem to be offering no viable future whatsoever.

In reply to The Lemming:

Because he knows now isn't the time. Give him a few years......

In reply to MG:

Don’t romanticise him just because he wrote a good book and isn’t visibly a bucking fastard. Check his voting record - hardly progressive.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24964/rory_stewart/penrith_and_the_border...

Scroll down.

In reply to pasbury:

Im not. But in comparison to the other candidates (and Corbyn) he's great. 

In reply to pasbury:

Great, we get to choose between him and Corbyn to run the country.
 

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

42.4% of voters in the last election put their X on the ballot paper for the Tories. Lots of if's here, but, if we are out of Europe before the next election and Farage's party have fizzled out again, the Tory faithful will still be there. If the Lib Dems have a resurgence, the centre left vote will be split, and then we can all look forward to JR-M in the hot seat. I doubt his wife, Helena Anne Beatrix Wentworth Fitzwilliam de Chair, will be at the front door in her dressing gown though.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

For the next 5 years, I'd choose Rory. But right now I think Boris deserves everything that's coming

In reply to FactorXXX:

No I think it would be at least a four way split, the hung parliament of all hung parliaments. Lab, Con, Brexit, SDP, Libdem, even a bit of green in there.

A clusterf*ck of disagreement and dischord. But hopefully leading to something better.

In reply to Le Sapeur:

If the Lib Dems have a resurgence they will take away a lot of seats from the Tories who'll have a more precarious majority than they otherwise would have had. 

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

If that odious Leadsom won, I would move to the moon.

Or the buffoon.

Or that greasy faced Gove.

Or Jeremy the #unt

Or Raab the scab.

Or ... oh feck I’m moving to the moon.

In reply to EarlyBird:

Maybe aimed at the election of a leader of a new more centrist party which might emerge from the ashes of the tory party once they have finally torn themselves apart over Brexit.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

I remember her as a kids TV presenter, I think she was overstretched doing that to be honest.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Given the numbers in parliament and general chaos, it is also amazing that so many are volunteering to try to solve the problems.  The poisoned chalice has not vanished. Perhaps it is just a lust for power..... Or perhaps it is a sign that they are all so stupid and over estimating their own abilities that they believe they can find solutions.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Rory Stewart, as many others have said, is the best of an exceptionally bad bunch. I don't think we've ever had a situation like this where the fate of our country rests with such an inadequate collection of thick, ignorant, malicious and egotistical half-wits. There are different groupings: the thick and ignorant (Raab and McVey - terrifyingly dim); the weird, extreme zealots (Hunt); the plain weird and nerdy (Gove); the utterly nondescript and inexperienced (Hancock, Harper); the egotistical, irrational extremist (Javid); and the hugely egotistical, lazy, shambolic, hypocritical, self-contradictory charlatan, Boris. I also think he's probably further to the right than anything we've ever seen in British mainstream politics before. Except ... Andrea Leadsom. The most terrifying of the lot. Because, added to her glaring stupidity and ignorance, I believe she is subversive. She actually wants to subvert/bypass our parliamentary democracy (as demonstrated by her disgraceful behaviour today). What is so shocking is that, until a few weeks ago, she was Leader of the House of Commons; yet she seems to have almost no grasp of our constitution and particularly of our Parliamentary procedure/precedents. Incredibly, she seems to loathe parliament and has her own agenda (well, that of the ERG, I suppose), which is to undermine it or circumvent it.  

Edit: Ok, that was a bit of an extreme rant, but I think this situation is so dire, so serious, that there's no room for mincing words.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Is Sam Gyimah not still a thing? Out of the rabble I’ve so far heard of, I’d go for him.

jcm

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I think you summed the contestants up perfectly.

No need to apologise.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I think he's dropped out. May be wrong.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

No, having set out a reasonably sensible route forward, he couldn't find 8 Tory MPs to support him.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

He did, not enough bile and hatred make the cut.

In reply to baron:

Are you not a Tory voter though? If so who would fit the bill?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I love your résumé of the situation and share your pessimism.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

So with your wonderful summary in mind, maybe the whole lot will cancel each other out through a combination of ignorance, arrogance, personality deficiency, or excess self ambition leaving the way open for the dark Lord from the 18th century? He's held back for a reason for sure... 

In reply to pasbury:

I was. Failure to deliver Brexit has removed any inclination to vote for them. Certainly in the short term and probably in the long term as well.

Just as well given the sorry state of the leadership candidates.

As an aside, my mother, a long time Conservative voter, has vowed never to vote for them again since the BBC announcement on free TV licences. 

In reply to baron:

She's concerned about the really serious issues then?

In reply to Taylor's Landlord:

Indeed!  

Ignore those pensioners at your peril!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I'm not sure he is either left or right (by tory standards). He is just utterly unprincipled and will go with whichever way the wind is blowing towards power. Isn't that also how he came out as a Leaver in the first place?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, that's why I said he's self-contradictory. If he comesout to the 'left' as a Tory I don't think we've got much to worry about. I'm fairly sure, however, that in the leadership stakes he'll be playing the game of I'm more extremely right than you are. (Like Leadsom today with the whole fox-hunting thing.)

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I rather doubt that he's got the vaguest idea what he would do as PM so he can't really be described as left or right. I'm still baffled as to why he is popular (if he is) except that he provides lots of soundbites for lazy journalists.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I hope you're right, Nick - that he's such a charlatan that he doesn't really stand anywhere. I'm simply expressing a very realistic fear: that he'll now be playing the extreme right card for all it's worth.

His extreme tax relief plans for the wealthy are the first signs of this.

Plus his gung-ho pronouncements about not paying back the EU what we owe. I thought those kind of national chauvinist attitudes had died a death in the early years of the Great War.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Thing is he doesn’t give a f*ck about what you or I think unless we’re members of the Conservative party, if he makes the cut he’s in; Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Elected to the post by a majority of <insert suitable description of Tory party members here> old f*cking wankers - that’s my own description.

But I think that cloud will have a silver(ish) lining.

General election please.

In reply to pasbury:

Could this be the Tory plan?

A general election which passes the poison chalice to Labour and lets the Conservatives off the hook?

Mr Corbyn would love that.

Or maybe he wouldn’t.

The plan would hinge on Labour winning an election which isn’t guaranteed.

In reply to David Riley:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......

Holey shit, you're actually serious aren't you you frigging lunatic?

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Stewart for me too, though it is like choosing which bowl of piss to drink.

In reply to skog:

Not only that, he's also the sworn enemy of International Rescue:

http://www.tv-nostalgie.de/Sound/Thunderbirds/Hood.jpg

In reply to Sean Kelly:

Yes, 'The Places In Between' is well worth a read. I read another one he wrote 'Can Intervention Work?' about the UN in Afghanistan which was thoughtful and pragmatic (conclusion, only in very very limited ways).

He's an interesting bloke and head and shoulders above the rest of the Tory candidates and I expect most of the Tory party. 

I'd take him over Corbyn as PM. Stewart is a smart guy, intellectually curious, a patriot in the best sense, and an able administrator. He's had a privileged life but has used his advantages to good with a varied career and rich hinterland.

He represents the best side of a party I broadly disagree with, rather than the worst excesses of good one ( my view of Corbyn - although I think Labour's moral authority as 'good party' has been almost completely destroyed in the last few years).

As far as all the guff about 'his voting record' goes, this (by the excellent Marie Le Conte) shows how this can be misleading https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/theyworkforyou

I can't see Stewart winning, both main parties (and probably the Lib Dems) are in the hands of hobbyists - entitled cranks who are wildly unrepresentative of the population as a whole. We'll end up with the right wing version of Corbyn - someone who'll please the fifty something men of the shires but be out of touch, out of their depth and utterly unfit to do the job. God help us.

I do think that Rory Stewart's grown up and more honest campaign might force some reality into the contest, raise the quality of the debate, and remind some Tory members of their one nation and small c conservative heritage. They might go for a more unifying and less kamikaze person than otherwise.

In reply to DerwentDiluted:

Years?????

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Stewart. Not dim, not a zealot.

Unburdened by too much ideological brexit bullshit so he should be able to think again pragmatically when (repeating May's) plan-A fails.

My guess is we get Hunt who'll eventually find himself in the same position with a little less room to manoeuvre.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Like most people, I would choose Rory Stewart as the one I could probably enjoy a beer with.  However, of the candidates who have a realistic chance, despite his undoubted strangeness and his weathercock politics, I think Hunt is the one who might be the least incompetent.

In reply to jkarran:

I saw a headline recently that said "Fox backs Hunt", which I thought summed up the Brexit spirit rather well.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Johnson.

No seriously, I mean it.

Firstly, he's not actually the worst of them. That would be Raab, who appears to think that suspending democracy to enable Brexit is acceptable (I mean we pretty much have already, so why not make it explicit.) Or McVey or Leadsome, but they're outside bets. Hunt and Javid would also be utterly dreadful. Johnson at least doesn't appear to find it humiliating to appeal to anything other than deeply regressive values.

Secondly, I think we can safely ignore most of what he's saying at the moment. This election is essentially a dishonesty and nastiness contest. Johnson is the most likely to simply ignore everything he's said so far.

Thirdly, he's malleable. Should it become politically impossible to avoid a second referendum/revoking A50, as may well become the case, Johnson will do it if it helps him cling on to power and popularity. The zealots will go down and drag the country with them. Moreover, he's perhaps the candidate best able to cancel Brexit in a way that is palatable to the average leave voter, and hence take the momentum out of Farage. In much the same way that if Trump suddenly had an epiphany regarding climate change and started ranting all over twitter about how we urgently need to cooperate to reduce carbon emissions, his average supporter would probably convince themself they'd believed that all along.

Finally, it's going to happen at some point. It's not good for our politics to have the threat of Johnson's arsehole actions in his quest to become PM looming over absolutely everything. So let's just get it over with and hope that events conspire to reverse Brexit and remove him from power sooner rather than later.

For the record, I absolutely despise the man and thought he was capable to serious damage to our society years ago. In normal times, Stewart would be my pick without second thoughts.

In reply to Trevers:

What an interesting theory. It seems wildly optimistic, but you may just be right ...

In reply to The Lemming:

That thought had occurred to me too. I despise the barsteward even more (which I did not think possible). He is, after all, one of those who laid the golden turd and he can't be bothered to clear up afterwards.

In answer to the OP Rory Stewart is the most moderate but I don't suppose that is saying much.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Believe me I don't relish the prospect, I just think that the odds on us being completely screwed are lower with Johnson than with certain other of the candidates, especially those with a fighting chance.

Gove might also not be a complete disaster, but to be honest I trust him even less than Johnson, from the sense that I know when Johnson is being dishonest (i.e. always) and I find Gove's motives far more difficult to perceive.

In reply to Trevers:

I’ve heard this theory before. I’m not sure. Obviously Johnson’s an unprincipled liar, but he’s also a massive egotist. Having come out with this stuff, I’m really not sure I see him climbing down.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I don't think it's likely. But I'm not suggesting that Johnson is intending to climb down. I'm not sure he thinks too many steps ahead, just plays the game as it currently stands. I certainly don't see his ego as being a blocker for U-turns, for the simple reason that I don't think he's ever been personally committed to anything he's ever supported.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

According to BBC live reporting, Javid has the best canapes and booze at his launch, which could really turn this race on its head.

In reply to SuperstarDJ:

I had a days walking with Rory Stewart in Scotland (on a social occasion) a few years ago. I was very impressed, he was intelligent, articulate and fascinating in his views, particularly on the situation at the time in the Middle East. 

We were high on the Cairngorm plateau all day in cold, rain and wind which he bore with good humour. 

I would vote for him. 

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Andrea Leadsom. At first I thought Boris, but for shear consistency of WTO rules, what you see is what you get,  she is the most zealous and representative. She would go to the edge and maybe a No confidence vote will be triggered a GE and 2nd referendum parties get the go ahead to fight this. She is a good ERG Jacob Rees Mog surrogate PM. Think Boris will win cause he is manipulative and what you see is not what you get- in line with Tory tradition. Much more difficult to beat.

In reply to spartacus:

Unfortunately, no one else will. What he's even doing in the Tory party defeats me, he really should join the LibDems.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

He needs more Afghanistan/ Highland epiphanies before he can join the Lib Dems. 

In reply to spartacus:

The mans an out and out opium fiend!

In reply to FactorXXX:

Ignoring the way any of them want to take the country I'd say - Rory Stewart.

At least he has had experience in negotiating is his earlier roles.

Dave

In reply to spartacus:

He is an appealing character, to me anyway. Mind you I voted for Liz Kendall for Labour Leader in 2015 so know how to pick a loser. Expect him to poll 4%.

In reply to Trevers:

good point. 2 months of PM Johnson, 2 months of PM Corbyn, and then an election with normal party leaders again.

In reply to HansStuttgart:

And those 4 months would cost about a trillion each off GDP.

SuperstarDJs post re Rory Stewart is, I think, very accurate. The problem is he's actually competent, thoughtful, and less egotistical than the rest of the pack and therefore would be best off not getting the job - which will be entirely impossible for any human being with morals, a conscience, or any form of consistent understanding or commitment. It is, therefore, pretty much nailed on for Boris as a result. 

What an utter clusterf*ck we find ourselves in.

b

In reply to earlsdonwhu: I think this is a good idea . Despite really really not wanting or trusting any of the Cnutweasels  , whoever wins is going to have to have a go at sorting things out,  so we ( not just ukc ) should have a say in who that is . They should all stand in a line and we should all put our hands up for each one in turn . Hang on . To make it fair there should be be a few chaps and chapesses with different ideas and different coloured ties  in the line as well so that if we really really think the ones in the line are untrustworthy cnutweasels ( see above ) we could put  our hands for them instead. . The original cnutweasels could all pack their bags and the new ( hopefully less cnutweaselly ones)  could move in and have a go . Now what could we call that ? 

In answer to the original question . Thought Rory at first now think boris for the reasons given in the last few posts. Will change my mind later today and so on . 

In reply to mike123:

I think we're entering an era not dissimilar to the 60s and 70s - when the incompetence of governments of both sides in dealing with the new and rapidly evolving political and economic landscape  resulted in almost terminal decline. Massive unemployment and poverty, restricted life chances for many, rapidly declining environment, lack of inward investment, constantly devaluing pound … the country was at a pretty low ebb by 1979. I was there; I remember it well.

I see no alternative at the moment to a bumbling Boris Johnson crashing us out of the EU on Oct 31 and causing devastation to the UK economy; a significant rise in tension in N Ireland; a growth in institutionalised tax evasion and law breaking; and increasingly desperate attempts by the government to prop up institutions like the NHS and defence from a rapidly diminishing revenue pot. And all the while Boris will be blustering that 'We didn't expect this' and, of course, that old favourite 'it wasn't our fault - it's the EU wanted to punish us.' And all the while he will be posing for photo opportunities, sh*gging journalists and socialising with the mega rich who stand to get even richer from the market volatility and snapping up assets in fire sales. And, of course, any moves to tackle climate change, reduce consumption and reduce poverty and inequality will be blown away by short-term, economic realities - i.e., no cash.

While JC will continue to  bleat irrelevancies from the sidelines, continue to lose GEs spectacularly and continue to advocate the same solutions that were tried and failed in the 50s and 60s. And on a world stage, of course, we become very much sidelined, reflecting our size, our diminished economy and our clearly demonstrated total political incompetence.

Apart from that, everything looks peachy.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Corbyn's days are numbered, the membership may well oust him over his brexit leadership failure let alone when he misses an open goal at the next GE.

jk

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Simon Heffer, arch-Brexiter, conservative and Telegraph writer, demolishes Johnson, an "idle, lying charlatan":

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/06/supporting-boris-johnson-d...

In reply to jkarran:

What gives you that idea?

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Well, it looks like the man that thinks spending money on prosecuting child abusers is spunking it up a wall, we are well and truly f*cked.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

No deal  has not been stopped - vote to stop it  lost last night.

So  No confidence in government is only mechanism left.

If Corbyn tables something it doesn't seem to work - if Lib Dems did, it might in October.

In reply to Removed User:

He's miles out of line with his party on Europe, haemorrhaging support on two fronts. I don't think they'll stand for it much longer given he and the bad advice he's taking are clearly the direct cause of Labour's current dire polling. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the Momentum bubble is thick enough to insulate him.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

And everything from Rory Stewart to Boris is rubbish...!

In reply to jkarran:

I have the very definite impression that a lot of the new party members think Jeremy can do no wrong. It's a bit like a fan club for a boy band.

The other point, which is actually fair enough, is that there are other things that matter apart from Brexit such as zero hours contracts and the hostile environment. A lot of members seem to believe, rightly or wrongly, that Jeremy is the man to fix all that.

I don't think we'll see a change before a General election.

In reply to MargieB:

I do agree but I'm not quite sure what this is in response to. General frustration at the dearth of leadership quality in this time of crisis?

jk

In reply to Removed User:

I'm sure some do but not all, I voted for him or more to the point a more distinctive left leaning voice for Labour. I was wrong. Arguably he hasn't found that, not in a way that connects credibly with the public anyway and less arguably his weak opposition and failure to lead on brexit been a disaster.

But none of this can realistically be addressed by a government drowning in brexit contradictions as Labour intends to be with their 'jobs first brexit'. They need to be bold and honest or it will destroy them as surely as it has ruined the Conservative party.

Hard to say with certainty but that seems likely.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Agree. It needs expanding. Rory Stewart is a very reasonable man but his reasoning is not fully formed in my book. He is reasoning the impossible and in that  he is bamboozaling himself {and the electorate- possibly eventually GE}. He seriously is following a train of thought that we can achieve a fantastic inward flowing investment plan outside of the EU with some goody arrangement with them. Outside of the EU our investment decreases, with WTO rules we become prey to investment at the cost of other values, eg environmental, agricultural, possibly NHS. The logic for Rory would be to stay within EU and reform within it.  He hasn't had that epiphany yet.

Boris is the WTO, unfettered capitalism brigade, with dire consequences for this country- starting with greed as the starting point and factoring in little else. This of course appeals to the core conservative mentality that just love the bribe of decreased tax at the top end and a disintegrating country { but we're all right jack}.

Rory is more disturbing than Boris because his ideas are incomplete but  he Sounds very plausible. Ummmmmmmm............Could distract from the real reality of our economy.

We are hostage to a system of minority rule through s distorted FPTP system and now it is coming to roost. They should be proportionately represented. And even an idea of a group going to EU for a natter only involves conservatives- of the Scottish variety?? Excuse me, they are not dominant in Scotland.

The fact that we are watching the Tory Party leadership with disproportionate interest is because the system is so rigged that this has become the focus of attention which it should not be. The fate of our country lies disproportionately in their hands and I think we ought to see this and hopefully this constitutional aberration can be reformed.

In reply to MargieB:

I'll take the incompletely formed ideas of a thoughtful man over the complete but explicitly shit ideas of a self interested charlatan personally. One offers at least a glimmer of hope.

Totally agree but it can't. Not by ordinary democratic means anyway. Any party taking power has a vested interest in preserving or entrenching the system that brought it to power. That system is evolved and constantly evolving to exclude up-starts who might disrupt it. Maybe that evolution has just been outpaced by Farage's cult, his funders and their advertising machines but if that is the case, just wait and watch as they dig in rather than deliver electoral reform. 

Perhaps the coming brexit and populist far-right calamity will be the spark for revolution but I doubt it. In many ways I hope not because it will grisly and protracted and doomed to fail. Likely we shrug, accept our new lot and just have to live through another decade or two of looting.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

It probably will be the complete man with completely shit ideas of a self interested charlatan personality, formerly known as Boris.

But this sinking back to the old system? I don't think so- because there is one propellant and that is Scottish independence. If things get so bad, the hard rock of UK politics and the hard place {imo} economy of a Scottish independence comes into play. Now, I personally think independence is a particularly hard economic choice for us and it would resort to a choice between two weevils {aka Master and Commander film} but independence may become, on balance the better choice. One can't underestimate how much the down side of a terrible Conservative vision will propel that choice into reality!! I for one, may very reluctantly vote for it.

In reply to MargieB:

The way I see it is Scotland and NI both break away from the UK if we leave the EU now*, can't see how that can be avoided. The only real questions are how long it takes and how much blood is spilled in the process.

*still 50/50 as it has been since the referendum IMO

jk

In reply to jkarran:

It does seem to me a crisis moment. Trumps's visit was good timing because his aging mind has somehow acted like a truth drug whereby he says what he means:  when he says American companies are looking to undermine  free universal health care as we know it, he means it. Even the Price of Whales  gaff is his mind telling him a truth. 

It is  one  crucial political roll of the dice: No confidence in October, GE, a party or coalition that agrees a second referendum. Lots and lots of ifs and buts in a short space of time. Eu elections was a overall majority for staying in EU, I read, no matter how you read those results. Those parties are generally PR/constitutional reform as well. 

In reply to jkarran:

I'll say one thing in favour of Corbyn, he did start to negotiate with May the compromise softer Brexit option of a customs union. But this failed to reach agreement. Rory Stewart seems to be returning to this idea when his own party has rejected it and it would not go through Parliament because of his own party. Rory Stewart seems to have forgotten this and also that the EU elections firmly defined Brexit as WTO rules, since May/Corbyn chat was still play when those elections happened and neither Con nor Labour got a mandate vote for this idea.

Stewart is chasing a past train that has already left the station.

In reply to MargieB:

And the rest of them are chasing trains* that never existed?

*such as  £350M per week, total sovereignty, no trade barriers with EU (protection of EU trade rules without being subject to EU trade rules) and the easiest deal in history.

In reply to MargieB:

He must know that he has no chance in this leadership election. I suspect he is setting out his stall and raising his profile to play a major part, possibly as pm, in whatever rises from the ashes of the tory party once this whole grotesque Brexit fiasco is over. Good luck to him.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Boris the hypocrite.... 2007

  Johnson hit out at the former Chancellor for taking the job at Number 10 without winning his own general election as leader, calling it a ‘gigantic fraud’. ‘It’s the arrogance. It’s the contempt. That’s what gets me,’ Johnson wrote. ‘It’s Gordon Brown’s apparent belief that he can just trample on the democratic will of the British people. ‘It’s at moments like this that I think the political world has gone mad, and I am alone in detecting the gigantic fraud.’ Johnson argued that voters had elected Labour MPs on the belief that Tony Blair would remain Prime Minister for a third term. However, after facing growing pressure to resign, Brown took over from him without a leadership contest in May 2007. Calling the change in leadership a scandal, Johnson continued: ‘In 2005, there was a large number who voted Labour on the strength of a dwindling but still significant respect for the Prime Minister. ‘They voted for Tony, and yet they now get Gordon, and a transition about as democratically proper as the transition from Claudius to Nero. It is a scandal. ‘The extraordinary thing is that it looks as though he will now be in 10 Downing Street for three years, and without a mandate from the British people.’ 

In reply to MargieB:

That’s not how I understand Stewart’s position. I think he is saying that he would prefer to be in the EU but that the  referendum result changes everything. Ie the political calamity of reversing / ignoring the referendum result is worse than the economic calamity of leaving.

Johnson has, since his launch, taken a softer line saying he would prefer to have a deal. Of course you never know with Johnson so take that with a pinch of salt. But the logic of his position leads you right back to Mays withdrawal agreement. 

Either leave on 31 October with a lightly modified withdrawal agreement ( same as Stewart )

Or leave on 31 October with no agreement, try to open negotiations for an FTA with Eu and you are right back at the withdrawal agreement. In fairness Johnson would probably say that by then the whole Irish border issue will have been shown up to be the charade he thinks it is.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

You don’t see a difference in situations?  Labour were re elected because of Tony Blair, the Tories were elected in spite of May’s failings.  Tony had specifically promised to serve out a third term.

Bob Hughes - if we’ve left we can’t right back to where we are with the transition arrangement.  A TA is only required because of their interpretation of article 50 and if we’ve left that article no longer applies to us.  They won’t be able to say they’re not allowed to discuss anything else.

In reply to thomasadixon:

Their 3 core demands of paying up, Irish border and citz rights will remain the same and they will set those as conditions to entering talks. Only it will be harder to reach an agreement because, as an FTA it will need unanimous approval of the member states and ratification by all sorts of minor provinces like wallonia.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Yep. Even if the UK agrees to those three conditions and enters the talks, I don't think there will be a transition arrangement for during the talks. Because the current design of the transition is legally connected to the a50 process and that is gone after no deal.

But I don't think no deal will happen. There is still (barely) enough common sense in the UK (both the people and parliament) to choose extension over no deal. And for the EU the cost of extension is getting lower and lower because the UK is simply not competent enough (by losing goodwill) to abuse its remaining time as an EU member. This is in contrast to the cost of no deal for the EU, which is increasing (companies were better prepared at March 31). So the EU can afford to extend. Cue there will be a decade of extension without anything happening. This process will stop once the UK chooses between the deal and revocation.

I expect revocation to win this, but it will take time (as in years).

In reply to Bob Hughes:

I watched Andrew marr show today with Rory Stewart and I think he does prioritize the referendum /democracratic legitimacy above all else.- at the moment

But how will this notion lie when he loses to Boris?  he doesn't want to contemplate this today because he aims to win. I think other parties have predicted the outcome and are preparing. Rory is up for an elimination.

I'm afraid my bet is on Boris. So would Rory Stewart support no confidence in these new circumstances and a GE when parties advocate a second referendum? I think he would.. Would he think it is undermining democracy or  adding -in a democratic process on the options that are ever clarifying-  which look ever likely to  be WTO rules versus remain in EU. ? I think he would be compelled into that view. 

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Farage said he will work theTories in general election.

So has the Tory Party become the Tory Ukip party or Tory BNP party with him saying this, given Farage's affiliations?? Should we be as wary  of back door politics as ever where we don't iknow who is who.

So is it which of the 11 candidates are to be  choosen from!!!!

In reply to MargieB:

Agreed, none of them are pushing a remotely workable plan-A to their electorate and those with a stated plan-B look set to run into the same hurdles that felled May. All but Stewart making the hard-line pitch makes sense, they're differentiating themselves from the failed May and this is what will sell to the radicalised membership. Stewart's more moderate pitch may sell to the moderate Conservative MPs at least giving him a chance to put a case to the members and if that fails he has at least built his profile. Being out on his own, out of step with the membership makes some sense, if he wasn't he'd have been knocked out with the other also-ran loons, not still in contention.

I don't doubt they will all try their plan-A and maybe B. What I'm more interested in and it does require quite a bit of speculation is which of them has the wit, creativity and has left themselves sufficient room to manoeuvre once the pantomime is over and real progress needs to be made to try something radically different.

Do any of them really intend to crash us out in that case, knowing it just puts them right back where they failed before, needing a deal but under more pressure? None of them are dim but I accept they could be choosing their counsel carefully to avoid that realisation.

Are any of them willing to sacrifice the party in a GE to deliver brexit?

Do any of them have the skills to hold party and public together while offering us a new choice by referendum?

Beyond the bluster and entitled arrogance, do any of them really posses the diplomatic and sales skills May lacked to secure minor concessions from the EU then pull together their shattered party behind May's deal with added sprinkles?

I don't see any cause for hope but as ever, something has to change so it will.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Farage has given the conservative party the answer- his supporters support. Boris is pretty dependent. Farage has played a clever game calling the one shot eu election just the Bexit party,  not a political party. But it is really an infiltration tactic of the cons because the Brexit party won the LEAVE DEFINITION AS WTO RULES and they can really call the shots in a GE.

That's it for Boris. Dependency. And what about the con membership- even Dominic Grieve didn't recognise the local membership when they tried to oust him. Full of Brexit "party" people changing the definition of conservatism.

Rory may get into the last two but not beyond and that is what counts. Jog on Rory as an independent.

No confidence in governent and GE is a terrible risk cause there will be WTO versus stay in EU. But it seems only way now.FPTP system is a distortion to beat as well. Awful situation.

Parliament should sit over summer- too serious. 

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Rory Stewart gone.

I wish the focus was back in Parliament cause this leadership thing is creating a narrow band width of argument on the EU issue. The broader band width of argument lies within Parliament i.m.o.. 

In reply to jkarran:

Boris' options, in reality.

May deal still not accepted

Default Brexit not possible cause of Parliament stopping it.

Sacrificing Conservative party in a GE unpalatable.

He would prioritize the conservative retaining power to the next designated time of a GE, 2022. He needs time to build conservative profile in the years ahead to win a GE. He wants a sliver of difference from Farage to win the bland conservative middle ground that isn't attractive to Farage. He is boxed in by unicorn options. He wants to look different from Farage. Farage wants to hold him to ransom and challenge his space.

What would a wiley, chameleon like Boris have to do?

Pre-empt a no confidence vote because of  Parliamentary deadlock,: look reasonable by calling a second referendum on EU, so he is seen to beak the deadlock and he gets the credit for breaking not making an impossible situation {which he is responsible for at the moment},: this give tories more time in power, avoid GE and he hopes he can build the profile of the conservatives and his own before 2022. Only way to save the conservative party i.m.o.

Otherwise no confidence, GE and loss of con majority, even con party to be replaced by the Farage Party in effect. 

Boris has not many options in reality. 

In reply to MargieB:

An interesting theory, but unlikely, in my opinion. I doubt very much whether Johnson would dare call for a second referendum. There is such a head of steam behind Brexit, within the Tory party in particular and with the resurgent Farage, that to do so would be seen as a gross betrayal of the party and the electorate. The damage to the party would be considerable. It may be that Johnson is so lacking in principles that he would put himself ahead of party (and certainly ahead of the country) that he might countenance such a move, but I find it unlikely - the Tory party in Parliament would break down and it would be very hard for Johnson to govern. 

Add to that the possibility that a second referendum might result in a Remain result, which would also break the party. 

You're right that he has few options, but I doubt a second referendum is one of them. 

In reply to MargieB:

Johnson's plan so far: Become PM --> ...

In reply to MargieB:

That was exactly my optimistic theory which I suggested on here a few days ago. Looking less likely now, but I'd still put it as high as a 25% possibility. The point is, as you rightly say, that he's likely to run out of options. Alternatively, he is a complete egotistic numskull and will go for a no-deal Brexit (as he claims) and do untold damage to the country (and eventually to himself ... the one consolation of such a disastrous scenario.)

In reply to MargieB:

Where does this idea come from, please?

Parliament have already rejected the option to stop it at least twice, once on something brought forward by an SNP MP and once on something brought forward by a Labour MP.

And even if they've had a change of heart, how would they stop it anyway if they won't repeal article 50 and won't pass May's deal?

In reply to MargieB:

Agreed, after a brief pantomime he is very probably left with one bad option and one terrible option: election or referendum. Opinions will differ which is which.

Totally agree. They need as many of the years remaining to 2022 as possible to re-frame this mess and tell a new story if the Conservative party is to survive. An election now or worse, post Halloween extension would be disastrous for them and us. Another string of delays into that period doesn't help even if the EU is willing. Equally cornering parliament or the the EU resulting in A50 being revoked will trigger a premature GE at best.

The one we mainly overlook, I presume because neither of us consider it especially credible is he is able to secure cosmetic concessions around the backstop then convince the ERG types it's now or never for leaving. That might just deliver him the numbers he needs or it might spook enough of the tory moderates who now face deselection anyway to rebel. I can't see it happening personally but there's a sliver of a chance and we live in interesting times.

jk

In reply to skog:

The votes have been close and it's been far enough away from the actual crunch point that people would expect to be able to have another opportunity.    Anything brought forward by the SNP will be boycotted by the unionist parties on principle.

My guess is Boris will go full steam ahead for hard Brexit.   Looking super hard line but getting thwarted by parliament is not a bad outcome for Boris. 

The ERG Tories and the Brexit party aren't rivals, they are collaborators that are funded by the same people and coordinate with each other.   Once Boris gets the Tories to adopt Brexit party policies, Farage can stand aside for him entirely at the next GE, or only fight in Labour seats.   

If he can call a GE when the Brexit vote is enraged and united behind him but the Remain vote is split across several parties he can win with a majority big enough to implement all the Brexiteer funder's wet-dreams.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

But how would parliament stop a hard brexit?

Also, somewhere along the line, 'hard brexit' seems to have started to mean 'no deal brexit'.

No deal is 'clusterf*ck brexit', where we've somehow failed to agree terms for leaving and a transition to our new setup; May's deal is an example of a hard brexit.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

This is the risk in a early GE.

What evidence is there of the general trajectory of voting?Well perhaps The latest EU results that suggest that an early GE will produce no clear majority of any party: so, possibly a Remain  /2nd Ref party  that joins another 2nd ref party in government and supply arrangement -  a little like May had with DUP.

It is all highly risky. And the FPTP system all adds into that risk.

In reply to jkarran:

Maybe he'll use the threat of a second referendum as leverage. But then that wouldn't be a guarantee either! Though I'm doubtful there's a majority in Parliament for second vote.

In reply to pasbury:

Ever since they lit the fuse doing nothing indefinitely hasn't been an option. There isn't a majority for anything but unicorn dreaming yet but that simply isn't sustainable, if parliament can't change its mind we will have to change parliament which I don't think they want right now.

jk

In reply to skog:

'Default Brexit not possible cause of Parliament stopping it.' 

In so far as the default position for Brexit is no-deal, it's one of the crucial premises of Rory Stewart's argument against Boris Johnson. No-deal will not get past Parliament. Johnson would have to block (prorogue) Parliament to force no-deal through. And if he did that, Parliament would simply form somewhere other than in the houses of Parliament; every MP in the country would be there and they would block no-deal and bring down Johnson.

The other major premise of Stewart's argument is that Johnson cannot possibly negotiate a deal with the EU that is substantially different from May's by October 31st. Hence, it's not possible for him to deliver either of the two possible outcomes he promises. He will fail to deliver just as May failed to deliver and this will destroy the Conservative party.

That is Rory's argument and I hope he's right. Bring it on, I say.

In reply to Ratfeeder:

That's the thing, though - that isn't true.

The only thing required for no-deal brexit is for Parliament to fail to make something else happen. And it has to be something the EU is willing to go along with, too - unless it's repealing article 50, which appears to be possible to do unilaterally, though I'm sure that would bring a number of fresh problems in itself.

No-deal brexit doesn't have to be forced through, it happens automatically on 31st October. Parliament effectively passed it over two years ago, with the option to arrange a deal with the EU in the meantime (which it has so far failed to do).

In reply to skog:

Well, if you're right then Rory is wrong - he's potentially staked his political career on a false argument. Seems incredible that he would be careless enough to do that. Anyway, so many people seem to think the same as you that I've emailed him about it (he's my constituency MP). Whether he'll answer is another matter, though he did answer a previous question I put to him. Here's hoping. 

Ps - In any case, I believe this point was answered by Michael Gove in the televised debate - Parliament would simply revoke whatever bit of legality makes no-deal the default position.

In reply to Ratfeeder:

Of course I'm right - brexit happens on 31st October unless something is done to change that, and it's no-deal brexit if there isn't a deal! Whether "Rory" is wrong depends on whether you've stated his position accurately as saying this isn't the case.

Neither brexit, nor no-deal, is inevitable, but they were put in motion when article 50 was invoked, and short of a deal with the EU the only way to stop them that is within the power of the UK parliament is revoking article 50.

There's a deal on the table, but the UK parliament has rejected it several times. It could still accept it.

Revoking article 50 is possible, but politically very difficult.

Negotiating another deal, or some time for a referendum or election, may be possible - but it would first require the UK parliament to agree to try for it, then for the EU to agree to it.

No deal simply requires none of these things to happen - parliament just saying it doesn't want it (which isn't guaranteed either) doesn't change that.

Article 50 makes no-deal the default position; the UK can't force a deal on the EU, both sides have to agree. Parliament could make May's deal the default position, as it's already agreed - but what makes you think they would?

In reply to skog:

I have stated Rory Stewart's position accurately. If you are right then he is wrong. According to him and Michael Gove, if it comes to no-deal on October 31st then Parliament will block it. That's precisely why Dominic Raab has threatened to do what Stewart says that Johnson should be honest enough himself to threaten - i.e. to prorogue Parliament.

Then that is what Parliament would do.

That is what Stewart hopes will happen.

Perhaps 'politically very difficult' is preferable to the majority of MP's than economic catastrophe.

Rory Stewart thinks negotiating another (substantially different) deal by October 31st would be impossible.

Rory Stewart is in no doubt both that Parliament doesn't want no-deal and that it would block it.

Parliament would not make May's deal the default position, but Stewart hopes Parliament would vote it through (45 extra votes required) in preference to delaying Brexit beyond October 31st. I.e. it is the only viable way of delivering Brexit by the agreed date, in Stewart's view. Ken Clarke agrees with him.

In reply to skog:

I still can't make up my mind if Boris will allow a default no deal.  Would he be responsible for so much turmoil or balk at that one. Instinct says he'll balk. Farage wouldn't but he isn't Farage and maybe Boris doesn't want to identify himself and the Con party completely with them. Instinct tells me he wants to have a distinction between the Cons and Farage . I'm not unconvinced he won't opt for a Boris surprise, and even authorize that 2nd referendum to avoid a default Brexit and a  GE. But goodness knows really....

In reply to MargieB:

Presumably the Tory party membership are not expecting BlowJob to offer a second referendum? And they would feel betrayed if he did?

But f*ck them, he’s not above that kind of thing.

In reply to pasbury:

Blowjob? I like it. He betrayed his constituents to whom he'd promised implacable opposition to the Heathrow 3rd runway, finding he had an urgent appointment with a squirrel in Afghanistan on the morning of the vote. He has betrayed people throughout his career. Why on earth do the Tories, or anybody else, think they'll be getting anything else?

In reply to Ratfeeder:

He is right, as of this moment brexit happens on the 31st and parliament appears powerless having just squandered their last obvious opportunity (thanks Labour rebels and genuine thanks to the tory rebels) to keep control of that process. The government would now have to give parliament the opportunity revoke or delay which of course they should morally but probably won't because it's believed to be bad for the party to be seen facilitating that. It is however abundantly clear that there really is no will in parliament for no-deal so as the threat builds through the autumn we will see them looking for ever more convoluted and drastic options to wrest control from Johnson who may not actually be too resistant behind the scenes.

There will likely be some emergency powers legislation required before we leave without signing the WA, I guess amendments to this holding the government to ransom provide a possible path to parliament being given a say.

They can't, not unless government offers them the opportunity or one can somehow be manufactured, the last chance by normal means has passed. We're well into very very dangerous territory here, largely reliant on the good judgement of an entitled man-child that has to date shown none other than where it relates to elevating his own status.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Vote of no confidence is one way of stopping no deal. But of course it would have other consequences.

In reply to Michael Hood:

I think a vote of no confidence would be inevitable, and the government would almost certainly be defeated - meaning General Election. Which I don't think Boris would want to risk. Ergo, second referendum, as his only way out of the problem and of clinging to power. His only ambition in life is to be PM; he doesn't apparently believe in principles.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Is it?

Johnson will be claiming the EU will blink until midnight of Halloween if that's the game he's pressed to play. Until it is absolutely crystal clear what's happening, maybe late-October at the earliest that's a vote which could still very easily be lost to partisan loyalty. Then what even if it's won? The government gets time to build a new coalition or in this case, to do precisely nothing while the clock ticks over, it's just a vote of no confidence, it doesn't give MPs the time or tools to revoke A50 or somehow bypass or direct government to avert disaster. For that to possibly work it has to happen early, maybe September but at that point there will be near zero hope of persuading enough Tory MP's sacrifice their jobs and cut their party down while it's still actively involved in negotiations which may pay sufficient dividends to squeeze May's WA through and while there is still hope the leadership has a less drastic plan-B should that fail. Given a handful of Labour MPs would likely abstain and at that point the DUP would likely still be on board with the government you'd need a sizeable Conservative rebellion which may well be achievable in extremis but in extremis the rebellion becomes already pointless.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

You may be right.

We're all doomed

In reply to jkarran:

The Eu could be persuaded to a last minute extension withe a view to a no confidence vote having last minute been lodged. They would probably grant is under condition of GE or second referendum and that is when Boris says 2nd Referendum rather than risk a GE.

Yes Boris could very easily take us to that time edge.

But I'm still unsure if Boris would be thick skinned enough to do nothing and have a default WTO Brexit if Parliament is hamstrung,  with a no confidence vote failing. Why would he not do this?-  he may not want to be responsible for break up of UK, not want to be responsible for Farage style political take-over of Conservative party, to avoid being eclisped by Farage in future GE who would claim he was right all along and the true inheritor of that political shift, to deprive Farage of credibility and credit beyond all his hopes, :because he fundamentally believes in consent rather than imposition, unlike Farage????? It could boil down to one man's personality in how he leads the way if Parliament is hamstrung.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

Personality of Boris according to girl-friend: a galumphing unicorn, goes knocking about the flat , spilling the wine and wrecking the sofa.

And Boris is about to scale that up -  Replace sofa for economy.

In reply to MargieB:

BJ could be out of the relationship with (the EU / wosshername) by October 31

In reply to jkarran:

Parliament doesn't require any permission from government to impose it's will. Parliament is the highest legislative authority in the UK and is responsible for checking the work of government (the 'executive'), debating and approving new laws. The government needs the support of the majority of the House of Commons to function. Hence, if Parliament does not support leaving the EU without a deal, but the government is determined to carry that through, then the government would have to prorogue Parliament, which is unconstitutional and has not been done since Charles I did it (and look what happened to him!). Raab has unwisely said he would do just that, while Johnson has kept quiet about the fact that that would be his only option. Notice that none of the candidates have argued that Parliament cannot block a no-deal Brexit or against Stewart's assertion that proroguing Parliament would be the only way for government to allow a no-deal exit to happen.

Stewart is the only (former) candidate telling it as it is. The rest have lost touch with reality (especially Johnson).

In reply to Ratfeeder:

Stewart did argue against proroguing Parliament because he is essentially a value driven politician. Values lie at the heart of this. May even began a process of negotiation with Labour out of a respect for the values of Parliamentary consensus which she started to try and find but she was cut off in that process pretty quickly.

This suggests a replacement by opportunist driven politics {Faragism} not value driven politics. In my view that is now at the heart of our system. What democratic  values are you prepared to trample on to get what you want, seems the mentality now.

This is where I would like, {in a straw poll of desired outcomes}, a return to value politics through a no confidence/ GE which would get  a 2nd referendum party and consensus federalism and PR. But that is my own personal hopeful outcome.

Someone said in a thread be careful of what you wish for because a right wing majority could be achieved. I think it is now a case of be careful what we actually have got and it is there already.

In reply to Ratfeeder:

It is. It is not, however, competent to impose international deals on other countries, or to unilaterally amend international deals or treaties. The UK is not the world, and only has a very limited number of options available to it here.

They don't want to argue that, where would doing so fit in their strategy? And parliament can block no-deal if it can force a vote, but only by doing something else to replace it, and something the EU accepts. And they generally won't want to discuss proroguing, as most will realise it makes them sound like total mentalists.

Stewart is a Tory brexiteer with his own agenda. That he seems more grounded and reasonable than the other former leadership candidates is not exactly a ringing endorsement of him, and he'll be choosing what he says to further his own goals rather than because it's true and complete. He appears to be trying to encourage May's hard-brexit-but-with-a-deal by worrying the no-dealers into accepting it in case there's no brexit at all if they don't - but I'm sure he's playing a number of other games at the same time, including maneuvering to further his own career (not unreasonable - that isn't a slur!)

There has been no indication so far that parliament is willing to do what it takes to stop no-deal brexit, and it recently voted to deny itself the ability to step in and do so. Unless you have something new to suggest, they can only do so by revoking article 50 (which I find vanishingly unlikely), accepting May's deal (or a quick-fudge amendment to it, which may not even be forthcoming), or by making further arrangements with the EU for an extension (no indication there's majority support for this, short of time, no guarantee of success, and not clear that the EU would actually deal directly with parliament rather than government).

In reply to skog:

Of course Parliament cannot unilaterally amend the currently agreed deal or impose a new one on the other member states. But one of its options is to stop the UK from leaving the EU if a deal cannot be agreed that is acceptable to both Parliament and the EU. The EU has no objection to the UK staying in. Under such circumstances the EU is likely to grant an extension; but not leaving the EU on October 31st is not in any case dependent on the EU. All Parliament has to do is revoke Article 50.

They don't want to contest it because they know it's true. No need for any speculation about possible strategies that such contestation may or may not fit. Again, we don't need another deal if we don't leave the EU.

Stewart was originally a remainer, though he thinks it important to honour the result of the 2016 referendum. He thinks the only viable way to do that is to persuade the 45 MP's who voted against TM's deal to change their minds. I have no doubt that his argument against Johnson's position was calculated to be his best hope of winning the leadership contest, but I think he is too intelligent to stake a leadership bid on an argument that is either not valid or contains false premises - it would be too easily dismissed by other candidates. Let's face it, his intelligence and experience as a diplomat were his main strengths as a candidate (but clearly the party prefers 'big' personalities over reason and realism).

For the record, I think it is important not to 'honour' the referendum result, since it was fraudulently achieved and therefore should not be regarded as legitimate. In my view a second referendum is the only answer. So I disagree with RS, and I dislike his politics. Though he's my constituency MP I have never voted for him and never will. Stewart's critique of Johnson was largely motivated by concern about the damage he is likely to inflict on the Con. party. If his concerns are justified, Stewart sees that as a reason to hope Johnson doesn't win the leadership contest. I see it as a reason to hope he does.

I agree that Stewart's argument very clearly relies on the assumption that Parliament absolutely would do whatever it takes to stop a no-deal exit, to the extent that the government would be forced to prorogue it if it remained determined to get no-deal through. In such an event, Stewart unequivocally believes Parliament would bring down the Prime Minister. But Parliament could of course prove Stewart wrong in his initial assumption. That would be surprising, though, given his experience and knowledge of Parliament. And I really don't think he is being disingenuous. 

In reply to Ratfeeder:

does anyone understand the mechanism by which parliament could block a no-deal brexit? I haven’t been able to get my head round what it would be

In reply to Bob Hughes:

It could revoke Article 50 or demand of government that it requests an extension, which the EU is likely to grant under those circumstances.

In reply to Ratfeeder:

What government is going to revoke article 50 knowing that it will consign their party to the political wasteland for years to come?

In reply to baron:

It won't be the government that does it, it'll be Parliament.

In reply to Ratfeeder:

How is parliament going to revoke Article 50?

In reply to Bob Hughes:

1. vote in favour of the deal

2. Instruct the government to revoke a50.

3. Instruct the government to revoke a50 (or agree to the WA) some days before the day the UK is set to leave the EU if there is no agreement on the deal.

How any of this can be done using the procedures of the HoC, I have no idea But all these votes to take no deal of the table are meaningless until one of the above points is in play.

PS. Someone made similar points above, sorry if I am stating the obvious here...

In reply to Ratfeeder:

 

I find it actually hard to figure out where he wanted to go. Most of his comments were tactical about the current situation and very little was strategic about the future.

So the tactics is to get the deal through (which I agree with). But what then?

Presumably it is to use the breathing space this generates to set up a long term background negotiation about trade with the EU and focus the UK state on something else for a while.

In the hope that this generates a clearer consensus in the country for a soft brexit? A clear majority to rejoin the EU?

In reply to baron:

In theory, very easily. All it takes is for the House of Commons to vote to revoke Article 50. That isn't to say it would, but it could; and the only way the government could then press ahead with Brexit would be to prorogue Parliament, which would be a constitutional crisis.

In reply to HansStuttgart:

On the face of it, he now seems happy to see the UK outside the EU under the terms of TM's deal. He always was TM's loyal lapdog. He doesn't seem to be angling to rejoin the EU. Perhaps he has an overly virtue-signalling respect for 'democratic' results even when they are tainted by lies and dirty money - who knows?

In reply to Ratfeeder:

Yes. But TM's deal does not specify much. It is just the starting point for the real trade negotiation that will show what balance between a UK independent trade policy and remaining UK influence over EU legislation vs UK simply accepting legislation from Brussels is possible.

or he was trying to win a race for conservative leader....

In reply to Ratfeeder:

But the House of Commons can’t just vote on any legislation that it wants.

That’s up to the government.

In reply to Ratfeeder:

This much I understand but in the specific case of leaving the EU without a deal, parliament made that decision nearly three years ago. All the government needs to do is nothing. Yes, that's a grossly irresponsible way to proceed but it is one that's available. Parliament cannot by any obvious means in the time available actively act to block no-deal by compelling the government to do something else. They had that chance two weeks ago, the last one scheduled before we leave and they choked.

How do you think parliament seizes control of the agenda here?

They can be sitting but unable to compel government for reasons of timetabling. Sending them home might prevent them felling the government at an inconvenient moment but even then if they do the government gets time to build a new coalition which has the confidence of parliament (which they won't) during which all they have to do on brexit is nothing, the clock keeps ticking.

Sure, this is all unprecedented stuff but we're talking about the death throes of a party that has succumbed completely to the radicalising virus of populist nationalism, which has committed fully and repeatedly to delivering the undeliverable. We may semi-jokingly look to the 17thC for precedent but the joke's on us, we're well on the route to civil war at present. Our parliament looks soon to be stacked with hopeless English nationalists shaping discussions if not in no.10, their project undermining peace in Ireland, Scotland driven to leave the union in defiance of Westminster. This won't go smoothly against a background of deep economic harm and cuts in state service provision. Scapegoats will be needed.

Except for the delusion about getting the WA passed, yes the rest of it was refreshingly honest. Gyimah was telling the truth, they can't move forward constructively without a new mandate, the remaining choice is how to get one with minimum harm to the Conservative party.

jk

In reply to Ratfeeder:

How exactly?

jk

In reply to baron:

Parliament actually did have the chance to take control of this very recently. They rejected it:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48613921

This guy voted against parliament having that option..:

https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1138924354127978496

In reply to HansStuttgart:

Seems unlikely given the water already under the bridge. ERG may fold but will they be enough, will others rebel for other reasons, it's certainly not clear this is achievable even with the hardliners on board. It's probably the most likely outcome with a handful of Labour MPs now regularly rebelling over brexit but its far from certain.

Non-binding and more harmful to the government than other options like delay and GE or delay and ref' which it may eventually counter-offer. They'll probably just ignore the instruction, there are no good choices left for the Conservative party but to deliver brexit then blame others for its sabotage when the pain comes and this hardly counts as a good option!

Looks like 1&2 but requires a decision in principle for something there is no majority for before the pressure is really ratcheted up. Much like most of the efforts to inject some sense and responsibility into the process that have already failed.

The 'how' bit is now a big part of the problem, not just finding what they can agree on but finding the moment to agree.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Can Parliamentary summer recess July-September be suspended in a crisis likethis. There is another Parliamentary recess in Sept for party conferences. This is ridiculous.

We spend this month  on the irrelevances of a  leadership contest and nothing on Parliamentary indicative votes and law.

In reply to jkarran:

Hi jk

Sure it is unlikely, but the problem is political. There are approx 280 CON MPs who have voted for the deal and probably 100 LAB MPs who favour leaving with a deal. With party politics before everything, the deadlock remains in place.

It was a list of options to take no deal off the table. Delay does not do that. But I agree that both a delay with a GE or a delay with a 2nd ref are more likely options than the ones I have listed. The GE is easier to achieve, but will result in a new deadlock. The 2nd ref depends on the question: "The UK should revoke a50 and remain in the EU" with an answer of yes does the job, "Deal or no deal?" with an answer of no deal is a problem.....

Yes, but it exploits the fact that there is a large majority in the HoC against no deal. By changing the default, the ERG game of voting against everything and stalling for time is ruined and they will have to make a choice. The problem is that it needs a skillful political operator, preferably as leader of the conservative party, and those are in short supply

Yes. This holds for a 2nd ref as well. How will you get a majority in the HoC in favour of a 2nd ref, how will you get them to agree on a question, etc? What happens if a "tell them again" campaign wins the 2nd ref? To quote Donald Tusk: "there is no political force and no effective leadership for remain. I say this without satisfaction, but you can't argue with the facts."

I think the chance of no deal is about 25%, which is dangerously high for something so disastrous. So I would vote for the deal if I was a UK MP.

In reply to HansStuttgart:

It's starting to look like events may be overtaking the Conservatives anyway, their majority is starting to look very questionable. It'll be interesting to see if the threat of leaving a Johnson government in charge with parliament dissolved (especially during late-October) provides some insulation against an attempt to oust them or whether it just changes the timing. I can't see Johnson choosing an election but has he made enough enemies along the road to power that one could be forced upon him?

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Why would he not choose an election? I expect Johnson to be confident that he will win a majority. If he gets Farage to support him, not too many moderate con MPs to leave the party, and Labour to maintain its current state, he might actually win one.

In reply to jkarran:

I presume parliament could tell the government that they are going to continue sitting regardless of what the government wants.

Would be a bit of a constitutional nightmare but I suspect that government shutting down parliament against its will would be unlawful.

Are there enough MPs who would really care about the primacy of parliament though. And (more importantly - and lamentably this might even be true) it might also mean they miss their summer holidays.

In reply to HansStuttgart:

If he can agree a non-destruction pact with Farage then maybe but what does that actually look like, will Farage agree not to stand candidates against 'wet'/remain tories? And why would Johnson do that, it just turbocharges May's problem, you get a majority on paper but not one that will vote with the party for reality, only for fantasy. Without a pact (which strikes me as nearly as dangerous as fighting Farage head on) and without brexit delivered the Conservatives look to be on the ropes, attacked on both flanks. Sure, the remain vote is atomised by our inability to collaborate across broader ideological divides but I don't see a clear Conservative majority on the cards. There might be a narrow window between now and the coming October climb-down where Johnson believes he's riding high but I doubt it after a bruising campaign and even if Hunt pulls his punches it's still a huge gamble given more than half of their own members are voting Farage, who's going to campaign for them, let alone vote for them. And they're flat broke, defunded by leave and remain donors alike!

jk

In reply to jkarran:

That is all very reasonable, but is Johnson going for a reasonable approach?

Anyway, I am off on a trip, thanks for discussing!

In reply to baron:

1. Yes it can - and whenever it wants. Parliament is the legislature (i.e. the law).

2. No it isn't. The government is the executive (i.e. it carries out the will of Parliament - it cannot legally defy Parliament).

Parliament can legally bring down a government. A government cannot legally bring down, or even block, Parliament. Hence, proroguing is illegal as well as a direct attack on the UK constitution.

In reply to Ratfeeder:

I have no idea how proroguing works but at present parliament has no means to stop Brexit.

In reply to baron:

They can certainly stop a No Deal Brexit, if there's a vote of no confidence and the government loses it. Then there would have to be a General Election, and then anything could happen. As we've discussed before, Boris may be forced to have a second referendum (because he would be running out of options).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48742881

In reply to Ratfeeder:

It's not as simple as that. Government controls the parliamentary timetable (i.e. which bills get debated) so they can just not bring any significant bills to be debated and, in theory, parliament would have to sit by and watch.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/new-prime-minister-intent-no...

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/speaker-cant-guarantee-mps-c... 

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

If the government loses a no confidence vote there’s a 14 day period for another government to be formed.

A general election isn’t inevitable.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Government control over timetable can be overridden by Parliament under SO24.

Speaker of House of Commons says, to quote from your second link, "the idea that Parliament is going to...be evacuated from the centre stage of the debate on Brexit is unimaginable". He can and probably will create opportunities for MP's to express opposition to no deal.

As Gordon says, Parliament always has the option of holding a vote of no confidence in the government. No guarantee which way the vote would go, of course, but given the indications that the majority of MP's are opposed to no deal, it seems likely to succeed. The shortage of time creates difficulties but that doesn't alter the legal primacy of Parliament over government.

In reply to Ratfeeder:

a.k.a. Taking back control ...

.

.

.

.

.

of the asylum, from the lunatics.

In reply to Ratfeeder:

The majority of MPs aren’t just opposed to no deal they’re opposed to Brexit.

They have been before and since the referendum result.

They’ve had numerous chances to stop Brexit but haven’t.

In reply to baron:

It also doesn't stop no-deal brexit.

A new government might, if it could be formed before 31st October, if it was so inclined, and if took one of the options detailed above - but that's a lot of ifs.

In reply to baron:

Who is going to form a government in 14 days, Not conservatives with any Parliamentary confidence, not Labour- no majority for it. Not Lib Dems, not enough Mps, not SNP not enough mps, not Greens not enough etc. Coalitions? Labour would rather go for general election than that, I think and wouldn't command a Parliamentary confidence with the current parties' distribution in Parliament at the moment - so not much chance of 14 days producing a  workable government. 

Although I personally would like to see a GE and hope for an outcome I personally like, I think reality is that circumstances will force a Con PM to prefer a second referendum before GE, as the better of two weevils.

And the only thing a Con PM can control is to reject a discussion of a soft Brexit, leaving default WTO rules on the table and on the referendum paper- backed up by the EU election results as corroborative evidence of what leavers want to define "leave" as, probably backed by Parliamentary indicative votes.

And I bet it is still Boris who will win leadership cause he is most like the conservative party members in  Brexit attitude and no doubt we'll have to agonizingly see him try to negotiate with EU and fail, then Corbyn prevaricate a bit  and everyone else do a little dance to get to a conclusion.

In reply to Ratfeeder:

In principal. In practice government controls the timetable of parliament granting or denying it the time to debate motions up to and including motions of no confidence in said government. If the government doesn't want parliament to have the opportunity to force an alternative to a no-deal brexit and it is willing to set some (more) dangerous precedents it's hard to see how it can be stopped.

Even if they force and win a vote of no confidence which until they're fully out of other options still looks unwinnable then a GE takes a minimum of 7 weeks during which the government is essentially unopposed, a timeframe which could easily be expanded to 9 or more in the unlikely event Labour were to have a go at heading a cross-party national unity coalition. During that time all the government has to do is go to ground and do nothing about the A50 deadline expiring*. All this has to happen against the backdrop of a leadership election, two scheduled recesses and a change of commission in Brussels meaning nothing significant really starts happening until Sept/Oct. To install a new government with a mandate to revoke A50 or more likely negotiate extension for a referendum then a no-confidence vote has to occur before the middle of September but it won't (at least not forced by brexit policy) because the 'new negotiations' Tory MPs will be pinning their careers on won't have started yet, let alone failed by that point.

*which it might not if it's acting rationally. The Conservatives and Farage are not going to be keen to fight GE in the immediate chaotic aftermath of a no-deal exit they engineered.

An unstoppable no-confidence motion through deaths, defections or disciplinary actions eroding the government's tiny majority seems more likely than a stumble over brexit felling it in time to avert disaster now. Even then it's possible one or two of the more batshit Labour brexiters will abstain.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

We're doomed. And then Boris presides over a country that is dangerously divided with nothing happening.

He still can just say: 2nd referendum folks. But would he??/??? ummmm........ I bet Yes he would call a 2nd referendum. It is all about his personality and one thing he does do is buckle and backtrack, a "quality"  we just might benefit from.

What would Farage do if he was in power? Plough on through a default Brexit.

I think Boris would  never want to give Farage a look into power. He wants the Conservative party to have a distinctly different character to the Farage Party.

In reply to MargieB:

He won't last a year, if pushing for no-deal doesn't fell him the aftermath will. My concern is that in the mean time if he so chooses by selecting a cabinet of like mind he can take near complete charge of the brexit process. Realistically none of us have any idea where his loyalties will lie when he's pressed to claim his little place in the history books. He'll have pawned his soul to get where he is today. Who holds it, what do they want and does he need it back?

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Boris must see the conservative party as a long term project. So he will have to consider that their identity is synthesizing with the far right and he may be that way inclined himself or he may not be. I agree, it is hard to read him.

In reply to MargieB:

Ha, that’s funny - Conservative party as a long term project.

Boris doesn’t see anything as a long term project except Boris. Trust me.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The true long term project is the establishment of a further right political party, with Farage heavily puppeteering things and that is what Boris has to consider. Yes Boris likes Boris more than he likes Farage and doesn't want him to steel his position.

To shift the angle a bit, all of this concentrates the Scottish position fairly heavily. I would prefer not to prolong the agony beyond October and have a GE. It is personally an interest to bring things to a head here in Scotland. Everything now lies within the English political court and a  GE would expose it.

Has English politics a desire for a radical change, with a few hard Farage types as Mps getting in as the price for a GE  but an overall shift.? and does the last 3 years concentrate the English electorate mind as to the distorting effect for Scotland of our current outmoded, distorting constitution? and can they see  this as  integral to governing generally.

It is in the English electoral court and I'd love to know it.

The Scottish electoral court is change UK or independence as options - it is obviously the current political trend here.

And can politics stop staying what it doesn't want and what it fears but what it does want.

In reply to MargieB:

Those pushing Brexit from the top are unlikely to admit to having motives of pure self-interest!

Those not pushing it are generally pretty clear about what they want, which most often is to put the decision back to the people, although by some absurdly twisted logic it seems that getting the people to decide a way forward, given that Government and Parliament have repeatedly failed, is somehow undemocratic.

In reply to john arran:

It is somewhat amusing (amongst the despair about the whole situation) that some are effectively saying that a second referendum is undemocratic.

In reply to jkarran:

Yes but SO24 allows Parliament to over-rule the timetable. If government had indefeasible control of the Commons timetable it could in theory become a runaway dictatorship.

However, I do admit it's puzzling and disappointing that the majority of MP's didn't vote to take no-deal off the table when they had the chance. Perhaps they were persuaded that keeping no-deal in play would give the UK some leverage in negotiations with the EU. If so, it's clearly backfired (and in any case the EU will see straight through the bluff). It certainly undermines RS's certainty that parliament would block a no-deal exit, though I still think it could. RS hasn't replied to my email yet and he probably won't bother, but it'd be interesting to see what he has to say. 

By way of consolation, some economists have suggested that the best outcome might actually be a no-deal exit. It would be so awful that within a couple of months the UK population would be demanding to get back into the EU!

In reply to Ratfeeder:

Only in a very limited sense. SO24 traditionally only allows non-substantive debates (ie “this house has considered”) which has political weight but no legal weight. The speaker may well give a more generous interpretation but it is by no means straightforward. The problem - and one of the reasons I think that MPs backed away last time - is the precedent that is set by giving Opposition MPs to block the agenda of a majority government.

my only point here is that parliament blocking no deal seems to be by no means a given. 

Well not in the sense that they would still need parliaments assent to pass laws and parliament would still have the right to amend those laws. We are just right now in the curious position that doing nothing is the one thing that will change everything.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Interesting article from The Guardian - Rory Stewart responding in his characteristically civilised way to Raab's usual bullish disdain for democracy and the UK constitution:

"Parliament is against no-deal. It is only the legal default because parliament made it the legal default. Parliament can unmake it the legal default. There are many, many opportunities in legislation that have to be brought forward, that could be amended in order to stop a no-deal Brexit."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-could-ignore-efforts-to...

In reply to Ratfeeder:

One could certainly argue it'll provide the short sharp shock required to bring us to our senses and that after the early phase of looting is complete the opposition to a return to order from those currently choking off Conservative funding might soften. The thing is though for hardship to make us see sense we need collectively to clearly understand what has caused that hardship. That information will flow, filtered and coloured through the usual channels, channels which, having by and large promoted brexit will have a clear vested interest in misplacing the blame for the ensuing hardship. More likely the backlash from no-deal chaos is turned on immigrants, remainer-traitors and saboteurs and the EU with Ireland coming in for special treatment... it'll be a very ugly shitstorm that could quickly spin irrevocably out of control.

Even if we end up with a charismatic statesman like leader who can communicate and advocate for rejoining the path back to membership will be very very hard. Whether we ultimately do have to accept it there will be the poisonous Euro issue to contend with which is both an economic and a visceral emotional issue. Plenty of brexit voters are still nostalgic for pre-decimal currency and measures. Potentially we will have to address the democratic defecit in the house of Lords, a seemingly intractable problem requiring well informed Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The rebate will certainly be gone giving real potency to that wretched red bus. Likely also there will be opposition of the like we faced 40 years ago, Britain has long been a bit of a thorn in the side of the EU and without us they may find their objectives somewhat easier to work toward in the short term.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Sounds a very plausible picture you paint. The misdirection of blame by political opportunists is an ugly business. The Brexit campaign itself was full of it, and people fell for it.