THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE
As it stands two junior ministers you have never heard of, unless you’re ever so slightly politically obsessed, meaning not me, apparently, have resigned. And if I’m honest the only people that will probably care are their families, themselves and their bank-managers – but only because resigning means they take a pay-cut.
They have resigned over Theresa May’s decision to “reach across the aisle” (of the commons, not Asda) and purchase negotiations with the Leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
The first to resign, this morning, a junior minister in the Welsh office, Nigel Adams, who cited Jeremy Corbyn’s alleged Marxism as a part of the reason for his resignation. Turns out Mr Adams, MP, was also a government whip… That’s quite a lot of roles for someone I’ve never heard of.
The second to resign, Chris Heaton-Harris, he was a parliamentary under-secretary in the Brexit department, so like an assistants assistant. Anyway he resigned on the grounds that his job was no longer needed, as we clearly weren’t leaving the EU…
Apparently being in a Customs Union is so offensive and means you’re still in Europe – I get his point, but surely his job involved more than alternative arrangement to a Customs Union, I mean there is more to our involvement with the EU is there not?
Anyway, if they’re are any more resignations today I’ll update them here, unless they warrant their own post (which I actually doubt, the extra pay needs to be pushed into the Caymen Islands ASAP)…
THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE
Direct Rule for Northern Ireland.
One of the key political rumours to come out from the big cabinet meeting (not in IKEA but 10 Downing Street) is that the biggest issue of No Deal would be “Direct Rule” – it has been stated that Andrea Leadsom suggested we went with Direct Rule, but called it something else – like that would change the fact of what it is.
And to be honest with the current stalemate in Stormount, we’re halfway there already, so this is not good.
Jeremy Corbyn is Target Practice for Soldiers.
Soldiers take pot-shots at Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn
Also to emerge this morning is the news that British soldiers were using a poster of the Opposition Leader, Jeremy Corbyn, for target practice. Whilst there is “social media” claims that the video is “doctored”, – the Ministry of Defense is investigating. To take the words of the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, a vehement opponent of Jeremy Corbyn, Stephen Pollard, who condemns this behaviour, writing:
I hardly need to state my utter contempt for Corbyn. But this is grotesque and deeply damaging to the reputation of our armed forces. https://t.co/mhlKcAke6c
Neil Hamilton, UKIP Leader in Wales has failed to see the irony of his own tweet. Writing:
Did anyone vote for a Tory/Labour coalition? Did anyone vote to put a Marxist in control of #Brexit? Didn't think so. This is not democracy. The people of #NewportWest need to make their anger known at the ballot box this Thursday and #VoteUKIP#ForTheNation
At the 2017 General Election the British Public voted more for an agreement between Labour and the Conservatives than the Confidence and Supply arrangement with the DUP. That is based more on the fact of how many votes each party got:
“Between them, the Conservatives and Labour won 82.3% of the UK vote – the highest since 1970.”
Which suggests that any coalition arrangement based on the Conservative and Labour parties would be more representative of the country than one based on 43.25% (Tory/DUP combined vote share) of the vote. And we shouldn’t forget that
“UKIP’s share of the vote fell from 12.6% in 2015 to 1.8% in 2017.”
THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE
For the sake of clarity here are the full texts of May’s Speech and Corbyn’s response.
Theresa May’s Speech
“I have just come from chairing seven hours of cabinet meetings focused on finding a route out of the current impasse [pronounced “ampass”]– one that will deliver the Brexit the British people voted for and allow us to move on and begin bringing our divided country back together.
I know there are some who are so fed up with delay and endless arguments that they would like to leave with no deal next week.
I have always been clear that we could make a success of no deal in the long term. But leaving with a deal is the best solution. So, we will need a further extension of article 50 – one that is as short as possible and which ends when we pass a deal. And we need to be clear what such an extension is for – to ensure we leave in a timely and orderly way.
This debate, this division, cannot drag on much longer. It is putting members of Parliament and everyone else under immense pressure and it is doing damage to our politics.
Despite the best efforts of MPs, the process that the House of Commons has tried to lead has not come up with an answer. So, today, I am taking action to break the logjam: I am offering to sit down with the leader of the opposition and to try to agree a plan – that we would both stick to – to ensure that we leave the European Union and that we do so with a deal.
Any plan would have to agree the current withdrawal agreement – it has already been negotiated with the 27 other members, and the EU has repeatedly said that it cannot and will not be reopened.
What we need to focus on is our future relationship with the EU. The ideal outcome of this process would be to agree an approach on a future relationship that delivers on the result of the referendum, that both the leader of the opposition and I could put to the house for approval, and which I could then take to next week’s European council.
However, if we cannot agree on a single unified approach, then we would instead agree a number of options for the future relationship that we could put to the house in a series of votes to determine which course to pursue. Crucially, the government stands ready to abide by the decision of the house. But, to make this process work, the opposition would need to agree to this too.
The government would then bring forward the withdrawal agreement bill. We would want to agree a timetable for this bill to ensure it is passed before 22 May so that the United Kingdom need not take part in European parliamentary elections.
This is a difficult time for everyone. Passions are running high on all sides of the argument. But we can and must find the compromises that will deliver what the British people voted for. This is a decisive moment in the story of these islands. And it requires national unity to deliver the national interest.”
Jeremy Corbyn’s Response
“I’m very happy to meet the prime minister. I don’t want to set any limits, one way or the other, ahead of those meetings. We recognise that she has made a move. I recognise my responsibility to represent the people who supported Labour in the last election and the people who didn’t support Labour but nevertheless want certainty and security for their own future. And that’s the basis on which we will meet her and have those discussions.
Labour has put forward our proposals to ensure there is a customs union with the EU, access to vital markets and protections of our standards of consumer, environmental and workers’ rights. And we’ll ensure that those are on the table. We’re also very clear that there has to be an absolute guarantee that the Good Friday Agreement is maintained for peace in Northern Ireland.
So far, the prime minister hasn’t shown much sign of compromise but I’m pleased that today she’s indicated she’ll accept the view of Parliament and is prepared to reach out and have that discussion. I have been meeting MPs from all parties over the past weeks. And there is some common ground; there are some areas it’s difficult to agree on. But, however people voted in the referendum of 2016, they didn’t vote for lower living standards or to lose their jobs. And there’s far more that unites people on both sides than divides them.”
Make your own minds up… I’ll respond properly tomorrow, no doubt.
THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE
There is ONLY one way of settling Brexit democratically and that is a preferential referendum of 3 or more options, my belief is three options are the minimum:
Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement (Parliament might not like it, perhaps the People do)
No Deal (Parliament might not like it, perhaps the People do)
Withdraw Article 50 – Parliament might not like it, perhaps in hindsight the People do? For those who don’t know, there are essentially three ways to vote in a Preferential system: X or 1 next to your preferred choice. And essentially say No to the other options.
1, 2, 3 next to the three choices available according to your preference. If for example, you prefer No Deal, you would place 1 in the box next to this option but COULD accept May’s Withdrawal Deal then you can put a 2 in the box next to this, you can of course not vote for a 3rd option, however by putting a 3 in that box you say two things:
A – I’m keeping this option out of the count for as long as possible and
B – I really don’t like this option.
And C – the third way is to spoil your paper.
Now I think three is the minimum but I don’t believe any other options should be included, other than perhaps a fourth “None of the Above” option should be included.
There are two reasons for not including more options – in this case, there is no way Brexit supporters can say we’re diluting the Brexit vs. Remain camp.
I believe there are many former Remain voters who might vote for May’s deal, and the second reason is that any more than four will actually create more division than unity.
Here’s a final point that I would recommend; this should not be a preferential vote where first preference wins automatically, but the preference with the most 1st choice and 2nd choices combined should win. Why?
Because that means whilst it may not be your preferred choice, it is acceptable to you as a voter, and therefore we can get a majority of the country behind a particular Brexit option.
This admittedly is an ever so slight twist on the normal preferential system, but for these unique circumstances I believe, truly, the most democratic and sensible way forward.
Why will this never get put to the people, because some people will claim it’s too complicated, which in my opinion insinuates that the people of the UK are dumb, I don’t believe that at all.
It also gives you the right to confirm your 2016 vote and to actually have an option rather than three words “Leave the EU” – which tells no one in any concrete way how you wish to leave.
Of course, if May’s deal is not the one parliament comes close to agreeing it should be the one parliament passes as an option, but I don’t believe the British people should not have a confirmatory say on the options now they are known.
And as a remainer, if Brexit in whatever form is the biggest winner, then I believe we need to accept that.
But if not, we need talk about how we bring healing back into our political discourse.
THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE
Theresa May’s “Ampass” (impasse) statement doesn’t really move things forward, rather she’s trying to keep her deal, whilst negotiating the future relationship with the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn. She refuses to explore No deal and to head for a further extension to Article 50, but not beyond May 22nd. The tactic of “trying” to get Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn involved is shrewd, if they don’t reach an agreement, she can blame him, and if they do but it falls in the commons, she can blame it on him, if they come up with a variety of options, she claims the bits she didn’t like (aka the Commons votes against) were insisted upon by her. Of course, I could be being cynical, but the state of things right now is pretty much no further forward than we were this morning, in my opinion.
THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE
Presenter on the news described the cabinet meeting which started at 9am and are still there gone 6pm as an “extraordinary length of time” – ya know like it’s not the Cabinet’s normal job, we think they probably got at least an hour for a cushy lunch, unlike Nurses on 12 hour + shifts… Ya know doing their day job! The language of how “special” this meeting is because of its “unprecedented” length, not because it’s actually anyone doing something amazing like Nurses… Who are paid around £25k and not a government minister who is paid closer to £125k.
THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE
Last night I said we shouldn’t set much score in the resignation of the whip by Nick Boles. That doesn’t mean his emotional plea:
“I have given everything to an attempt to find a compromise that can take this country out of the European Union while maintaining our economic strength and our political cohesion. I accept I have failed. I have failed chiefly because my party refuses to compromise. I regret, therefore, to announce I can no longer sit for this party.”
Nick Boles, MP
Should be ignored, merely that he is (as he has since stated) going to sit as an “Independent Progressive Conservative” MP – essentially a Tory with a conscience.
But ignoring the speaker of the words, and focus instead on what was said, and in a large part, why they were said, his words, I believe, underpin the general feeling of the media and perhaps this also reflects the wider view of the general public – one can imagine “Brenda from Bristol’s” reaction to this – maybe something a-kin to her 2017 outburst, though obviously different words today, as the cause is different.
But whilest every commentator has on the whole predicted the result of each vote correctly, no one can predict the outcome. Today Theresa May’s Etonian-Esq cabinet meets to thrash out a way forward, and I’m not sure Amanda Rudd and the Chancellor will come away without bruising and I sincerely believe they will come away without a compromise, any such compromise will be in all but name.
And like support for Scottish Independence we’ve seen a massive decline in support for Brexit – but instead of a population of between 6 million where 50% is 3 million we’re talking about a population where 10% is over 6 million – the numbers and thus the potential for unrest is significant.
And whilst Scotland remains at least on the whole, civil, the talk surrounding Brexit has been the opposite (not perhaps in the majority of cases) but a significant minority, again it comes back to numbers, for every nasty SNP supporter there are 9 sincere and decent SNP supporters; and whilst that may be true for Brexit, again, timesed across the population it equals a significant number.
And for want of a better phrase, Brexit is a numbers game. Theresa’s deal whilst not one I could support was a compromise that is rejected because it was not pleasing to anyone, with no real space for compromise, a “good deal” wouldn’t please everyone, but it would have enough to at least be a compromise, rather than a rigid blind brexit.
And that’s where we’re at – there is currently “no good deal” that would compromise the right amount for anyone to be even vaugly able to say “I got something I wanted, whilst also having to compromise on things I didn’t”. No one can save face at the moment – we’ve entered Trumpian diplomacy, where one side must win at the expense of the other – this isn’t diplomacy, it’s a war of ideology and words.
The truth is that’s where we’re at – Brexit now will either be won by No-Dealers by default, an “accidental” No Deal that has forced the hand of us all, or a last minute reprieve through a revocation of Article 50. Unless…
…Unless Theresa May actually risks everything. There’s five ways she’s got, and three look more likely than the others.
The first option is to tie her deal to a vote of no confidence and if her deal is rejected again, we’re likely to see a New Conservative PM – whether they would have the votes to support the new government or be forced into a GE is another issue. (This looks like an option May may persue).
The second option is similar, Theresa May will attempt to pit her deal against the Customs Union motion (from the indicative votes, again a more likely choice for May to make).
The third option is to call a General Election, this seems unlikely, but is more likely than option four.
The fourth option then is to call a “confirmatory” referendum. My preference here is for a preferential approach, i.e. three options voted for by selecting 1, 2 or 3 – but most MPs appear to believe the public is to dumb to understand this approach. Either way a second referendum is probably her last resort and least likely approach, which may just be why it’ll happen (she has a tendency).
The fifth option is to go for No Deal, this seems more likely than options 3 or 4 – but as soon as such an option is noted in the house I suspect there would be emergency motions etc – which could or couldn’t be won (as May has a fair few ultra-party loyal MPs, aka Turkey’s who’d vote for Christmas, such as my own MP Luke Graham, who always follow the whip, kinda like the majority of SNP MPs – who almost always follow their own whip too).
It may be that May opts for option 2, before proceeding to option 5, or possibly option 1 or options 3/4. Either way April 12th is fast approaching, and because she’s run down the clock, she’s forced everyone into a corner, and we’ve entered Trumpian-Esq diplomacy (Diplomatic Warfare) which has the potential, though is unlikely to end up in open warfare.
The chances are we won’t see a splitting up of the two party system this side of Brexit, and barring some catastrophic event (such as a No deal brexit), I’m not sure we will the other side for a long time either.
Whilst this post has “no real hope” – depending on your view point – but also doesn’t tell you which way forward is best – what do I know? I will remind you of the epic quotation from Marcus Tullius Cicero (aka Cicero, the Roman philosopher) – “Whilst there is life there is hope”… So when you’re blue remember that whilst you yet live there will always be hope.
THIS CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON MY OLD SITE AND FORMS PART OF THIS SITE’S ARCHIVE
Usually by now I’d have formulated a rough idea about what I think is going to happen next. Or I’d have been able to give you a rough idea of what the results of the indicitive votes actually means. But I can’t tonight, personally or in any use of my political “brain” come to any reasonable conclusions (primarily because of my need for sleep)
I could say we’re all just a little more screwed tonight, but that isn’t exactly erudite or a helpful answer to the questions of ‘what next’ and ‘what does this mean’.
My analysis will follow in the morrow. I will say that I sense that the return later this week with a run-off between May’s Deal and probably Customs Union (from tonight and last week’s indicative votes) may just be another step towards a cliff edge, and possibly will create a false-dichotomy of two things that aren’t mutually exclusive – and that May risks losing her hard-fought previous won over votes for her deal because Customs Union is exactly the kind of thing a fair amount of her own party wants, though will they be willing to deny the whip?
I don’t know just now what I think, but I’ll return tomorrow with actual thoughts…
PS – I wouldn’t put too much store in Nick Boles MPs resignation of the Conservative Whip, it literally just means he refuses to allow them to use a three-line whip (not physical) on him (in a political sense); he is as far as I can tell still a Conservative MP. Also, it doesn’t change the Government’s numbers enough, as they still officially have their confidence & supply deal with the DUP, and so technically have a “working majority” of 10 actual votes they’re theoretically able to count on – that’s not working out well for them, but more tomorrow on that too!
Wilson – Resigned within 6 days of his 25th defeat Callaghan’s government was bought down by the final defeat (a vote of No Confidence)
Other results:
Thatcher resigned within a year of her last defeat (though not because of it).
Almost a year (in February 1974) after his final defeat in July 1973 Heath called a GE, which although winning the popular vote he had fewer seats, Labour formed a minority government. Heath called the GE to bolster his government, but it seems unlikely this was to do with his house of commons defeat.
What do the numbers suggest?
25 seems to be the minimum number of Government defeats before a collapse. However, we should highlight that no PM has made it past 6 government defeats in the House of Commons without resigning, aside from Theresa May, who is just 3 losses short of Wilson, though 12 short of Callaghan’s 34 defeats.
Whilst there is no requirement on a PM to resign after a defeat or any number of defeats, no government with 7 or more defeats since 1945 has survived as PM.
Robert Peston highlights the likelihood of GE over other options, concluding with:
“But equally one of her closest ministers told me the risk of going to the country is exceptionally high – especially since the EU has said it would allow a further Brexit delay if the Brexit preferences of the UK needed to be tested again in an election.
At least after Friday Mrs May has a Brexit policy to put in an election manifesto, since 90% of her MPs voted for the Withdrawal Agreement – and when I mentioned to a Tory official that Friday’s defeat had yielded that advantage for the PM, I was greeted with a giggled “we’re all getting ahead of ourselves” rather than a denial.
