By-Election Bingo

[msc 18,476]

33/1 on a party that currently has no seats in parliament winning the most seats in the next election: good bet?

 

Thinking a Syriza style situation?

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

33/1 on a party that currently has no seats in parliament winning the most seats in the next election: good bet?

Thinking a Syriza style situation?

 

The way Labour's carrying on it's not beyond the realms of possibility. The question is the terms of the bet. The most likely 'new' party would be a merger of the Lib Dems and Labour rebels, perhaps under a new name, but it's whether the bookie would accept the new name as a new party, rather than a continuation of the Lib Dems. Still, at 33/1 it's got to be worth a cheeky punt.

 

Today has astonished me. I woke up to the news Gove was running and thought 'well that's a blow for Boris, what the hell's happened there?' and I nearly fell out of bed when I saw Boris wasn't running (yes, I had a lazy morning, sue me for it). I can't see Gove uniting the party, some of Boris' backers are foaming at the mouth at his treachery. It may come down to May v Leadsom (I can see Boris backing her eventually) and we'll see the lie of the land then. Hustings are Monday, first round of voting Tuesday, after which the results will be announced, the bottom name will drop out and any others who choose to remove themselves from consideration. Second ballot will be Thursday if necessary, and then the following Tuesday should a third round be needed, with a candidate dropping out each time until just two remain to be put to the wider membership.

[maryportfuncity 10,647]

33/1 on a party that currently has no seats in parliament winning the most seats in the next election: good bet?

 

 

Aye, for a small amount of cash. The question being does a beleagured Tory Prime Minister face no other option but going to the country within the next six months?

[Toast 16,144]

 

33/1 on a party that currently has no seats in parliament winning the most seats in the next election: good bet?

 

 

Aye, for a small amount of cash. The question being does a beleagured Tory Prime Minister face no other option but going to the country within the next six months?

 

 

It depends which country he fancies going to.

[Bibliogryphon 9,586]

Theresa May sounds like she might steady the Tory ship and push on to 2020.

[maryportfuncity 10,647]

Theresa May sounds like she might steady the Tory ship and push on to 2020.

 

Yeah, but the Brexiteers sounded like they knew what they were doing and they had a plan.

 

Let's get the voting over first, eh?

[Deathray 2,940]

With the Labour implosion and likely split the Tories will wait it out. T

[maryportfuncity 10,647]

With the Labour implosion and likely split the Tories will wait it out. T

 

 

The ravaged band with a wafer thin majority will struggle to wait it out comfortably though

[Deathray 2,940]

The PM that triggers Article 50 will not last more than two years. Cameron should have stayed.

[themaninblack 2,112]

The PM that triggers Article 50 will not last more than two years. Cameron should have stayed.

 

That's why left. He's no fool, he knew what was coming...

[Deathray 2,940]

 

The PM that triggers Article 50 will not last more than two years. Cameron should have stayed.

 

That's why left. He's no fool, he knew what was coming...

So why not trigger it then

[msc 18,476]

 

 

The PM that triggers Article 50 will not last more than two years. Cameron should have stayed.

That's why left. He's no fool, he knew what was coming...

So why not trigger it then

 

 

Basically... let those who demand you press the button, press it themselves.

[the_engineer 1,415]

 

33/1 on a party that currently has no seats in parliament winning the most seats in the next election: good bet?

 

 

Aye, for a small amount of cash. The question being does a beleagured Tory Prime Minister face no other option but going to the country within the next six months?

 

 

Jeremy corbyn leaving and starting his own party I can see happening if they push him out.

[the_engineer 1,415]

Andrea leadsom is coming up on the rails !! Between her and Theresa for the tory leadership and I can see Andrea being more favoured since she backed brexit .

[themaninblack 2,112]

 

 

 

The PM that triggers Article 50 will not last more than two years. Cameron should have stayed.

That's why left. He's no fool, he knew what was coming...

So why not trigger it then

 

 

Basically... let those who demand you press the button, press it themselves.

 

 

[maryportfuncity 10,647]

 

 

 

The PM that triggers Article 50 will not last more than two years. Cameron should have stayed.

That's why left. He's no fool, he knew what was coming...

So why not trigger it then

 

 

Basically... let those who demand you press the button, press it themselves.

 

 

 

Aye, he's thinking legacy and the fact this shit comes up to mug your political retirement; he gets to argue he had principles and make disparaging comments on the gorms who shouted loudly about Brexit and then fucked off before they had to do any real work.

 

Bet he's looking at Blair fighting desperately today for his place in history and reckoning the morning after Brexit resignation was a good move.

[Rotten Ali 600]

 

 

 

 

The PM that triggers Article 50 will not last more than two years. Cameron should have stayed.

 

That's why left. He's no fool, he knew what was coming...

So why not trigger it then

Basically... let those who demand you press the button, press it themselves.

 

Aye, he's thinking legacy and the fact this shit comes up to mug your political retirement; he gets to argue he had principles and make disparaging comments on the gorms who shouted loudly about Brexit and then fucked off before they had to do any real work.

 

Bet he's looking at Blair fighting desperately today for his place in history and reckoning the morning after Brexit resignation was a good move.

David Cameron is a F U C K I N G arse. He said he would trigger article 50 in this situation and then after he lost the argument he reneges on what needs to be done. Thus brings about uncertainty and starts to undermine the econemy. "look... I told you the markets would crash.." Arse hole. He should have stepped out of number 10, on the following morning to the referendum, told the press he had appointed Boris as the deputy prime minister, then gone to see The Queen to tender his resignation.

 

Job done, let the rest play out.

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

The PM that triggers Article 50 will not last more than two years. Cameron should have stayed.

That's why left. He's no fool, he knew what was coming...

So why not trigger it then

Basically... let those who demand you press the button, press it themselves.

Aye, he's thinking legacy and the fact this shit comes up to mug your political retirement; he gets to argue he had principles and make disparaging comments on the gorms who shouted loudly about Brexit and then fucked off before they had to do any real work.

Bet he's looking at Blair fighting desperately today for his place in history and reckoning the morning after Brexit resignation was a good move.

David Cameron is a F U C K I N G arse. He said he would trigger article 50 in this situation and then after he lost the argument he reneges on what needs to be done. Thus brings about uncertainty and starts to undermine the econemy. "look... I told you the markets would crash.." Arse hole. He should have stepped out of number 10, on the following morning to the referendum, told the press he had appointed Boris as the deputy prime minister, then gone to see The Queen to tender his resignation.

Job done, let the rest play out.

Basically disagree with everything you've said there. The general premise of my disagreement can be summed up simply as 'the Brexiteers got us here, it's their mess to sort out, but as was clear during the campaign, there isn't anything remotely like a unified Leave agenda which is why we're in the mess we're in.'

 

Why should Cameron trigger Article 50? As far as I can see (though I have admittedly not looked especially hard and am happy to be proven wrong), the most Cameron ever said about it was that, in the event of a Leave vote, Britain would be leaving the EU via the Article 50 provisions, in effect ruling out using the referendum to blackmail Brussels into giving us a better deal so we'd stay. He never said he'd trigger it, or that it would be triggered immediately. Of course, it would be perfectly fair to argue he should have triggered it if there was a clear majority of Brexiteers who wanted it to be triggered, but there isn't. To give an indication of the disparate views on offer:

 

Andrea Leadsom thinks we should trigger Article 50 immediately.

Liam Fox says we need a 'period of reflection' before we trigger Article 50.

Chris Grayling says Article 50 should only be invoked once Britain is ready to negotiate.

Boris Johnson says there is 'no need for haste' in triggering Article 50 and nothing should change in the short-term.

Michael Gove says Article 50 should not be triggered until at least next year.

Douglas Carswell says Article 50 won't be triggered until January 2017, after informal talks from September.

Nigel Farage thinks the British government shouldn't spend too long in triggering Article 50.

Teresa May (the likely next Prime Minister and the only Remainer quoted here) says we need to secure better deals BEFORE we trigger Article 50.

 

That's 8 different views (they are all distinct in their own way) on when Article 50 should be triggered, from 8 notable figures from the campaign. I'm happy to provide the sources that I found all these views from too by the way if necessary, but safe to say all come from post-referendum speeches and comments made on the subject. I'm also pretty sure I've heard someone say in the past fortnight that we may never invoke Article 50 at all and that if we repeal the 1972 European Communities Act (which took us in in the first place) then we're automatically out, but I can't find where I saw that or who said it.

 

Anyway, if Cameron had walked out on June 24th and unilaterally announced he would be invoking Article 50 at the EU Leaders Summit on Tuesday June 28th the Leave camp would have cried holy hell. And the idea that invoking Article 50 cuts out the uncertainty...it's not about when we trigger Article 50 that is causing the uncertainty, it's what happens post-Article 50 that's causing the uncertainty. Not one person can say, even broadly, what the terms of 'Brexit' will be. Will we be (do we want to be) in the single market? Some say yes, some say no. Will we have (do we want to have) free movement of people? Some say yes, some say no. Will we have some form of restrictions on goods, services and people? Some say yes, some say no. Do we want to be Norway? Some say yes, some say no. And on and on and on it goes. Triggering Article 50 would probably - if anything - increase panic, at least in the short term, because the clock is ticking, the country has no Prime Minister and nobody knows what the negotiating position is, or what the outcome will be. Until Article 50 is triggered, nothing changes materially, which is the closest thing to stability the markets have right now.

 

Finally, to the Boris suggestion. I will agree with you on one point: the fact that the Tory party does not have a Deputy Leader, and that the country does not have a Deputy Prime Minister is criminal. But if we play through your scenario, then we end up back where we started anyway. Let's say Cameron doesn't invoke Article 50 on the steps of Downing Street, because it is not his place to do so. He does, however, appoint Boris Johnson, as you suggest, to be the new interim Prime Minister until the party has its leadership contest. First, the Tory party cries foul. Cameron has anointed Boris his successor (something he'd never do by the way), putting him far ahead of Teresa May or any of the Brexiteers in the leadership race. It's essentially a coronation. Second, Boris, upon assuming temporary office, does what he says above, and tells us all that there is 'no need for haste' in triggering Article 50, and that nothing should change until Britain has an elected new Prime Minister - exactly the same position Cameron took (we know this is what he thinks - he said so the day after the vote). Thirdly, Michael Gove still has his epiphany (I'll be kind and suggest that after 40 years of knowing Boris, he hadn't realised he wasn't fit to be Prime Minister until 3 days after the vote) and announces his intention to run for the leadership of the party as Boris is 'unfortunately unqualified for the job'. Boris' haphazard conduct over the post-Brexit week have left many others with similarly unvoiced concerns and support for Boris craters (as it did). A crestfallen Boris declares that 'it cannot be me' and Britain is left with another caretaker Prime Minister until the Tory Party election. No government in this situation would conduct any meaningful business until a new leader was in place.

 

We all knew Cameron was out in the event of a Leave vote. We all knew that a new Prime Minister would be months in the electing. That's why everyone said there'd be chaos if we left. There will be no Brexit government until at least September, and frankly whatever the politicians say and whatever the shitstorm it would cause (because it would be chaos and, almost certainly, a hung parliament) I don't see that a Brexit government has any legitimacy without a general election. This whole 'we all voted last year for the Tories' did not give them a mandate to make decisions on our leaving the EU. The country's constitutional position has altered immensely and we need confidence that the government of the day speaks for the will of the people. At present, the lead contender to be the next Prime Minister didn't even vote to leave (if we assume she voted as she campaigned). Who says we even want the Tories to be negotiating for us? Granted, right now, nobody in their right mind would vote for the Labour party, but when we won WW2, we voted Churchill out of office. This is a similarly major event and you can't just assume support based on what went on in an election held under completely different circumstances. Anyway, that part is just my personal opinion, I feel most of the rest is a fairly rational argument about why Cameron had no place invoking Article 50 or in appointing BoJo as Prime Minister.

 

One final note: since 1945, there have been 6 changes of Prime Minister during a party's term of office. In the cases of Eden and Brown, they were the expected successors and were so-appointed with a minimum of fuss. In the cases of Callaghan and Major, they were the favoured successors and were similarly appointed. In the days of Macmillan and Douglas-Home, there was no leadership election per se, the Queen was simply informed who was expected to be able to command the majority of the house, and with advice, they were invited to form governments. The point I'm making is that at no point in any of those changes in leader has there been an 'interim' Prime Minister in the way there are often 'interim' Leaders of the Opposition (such as Beckett or Harman). The serving Prime Minister announces their intention to resign, a new leader is appointed by whatever method consistent with the time and party, and then - only then - does the Prime Minister resign their office. What Cameron is doing is perfectly ordinary, it just so happens the situation causing this is extraordinary. But nothing could prevent that, short of a Remain vote on June 23rd.

 

Sorry for the essay.

[rockhopper penguin 2,265]

Just one small addendum to your otherwise excellent analysis. To paraphrase Spitting Image from the time, it's Thatcher vs Heseltine for leader and the winner is....John Major!

[Cat O'Falk 3,290]

I've heard someone say in the past fortnight that we may never invoke Article 50 at all and that if we repeal the 1972 European Communities Act (which took us in in the first place) then we're automatically out, but I can't find where I saw that or who said it.

Possibly here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-loophole-eu-referendum-mps-law-legal-legislation-constitution-a7105181.html

 

Geoffrey Robertson QC says the UK parliament must vote to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act before the country can leave the European Union.

If MPs fail to repeal the 1972 act and Article 50 is invoked, then the law will have been broken.

[themaninblack 2,112]

Incidentally, whoever is elected Tory leader will become the first PM since Churchill in 1940 not to have either been Leader of the Opposition, Chancellor of the Exchequer or Foreign Secretary just prior to becoming PM...

[YoungWillz 21,056]

May or Leadsom equivalent to Churchill?

 

[msc 18,476]

Churchill was Chancellor in the 1920s.

 

Technically it's Arthur Balfour, if you don't count his time in charge of the Foreign Office in the 1890s when Lord Salisbury was ill. (It was more "interim" than a real term.) Balfour lost an election so badly he even lost his own seat, incidentally. Otherwise you can go back to the Earl of Derby, who was leader of the Tories before becoming PM, but they weren't the official opposition until after he'd become PM due to the collapse of the Whigs.

 

However, if we discount both of those, and include the Home Office as one of the four big offices of state (which we should if we're counting Leader of the Opposition), then the last person to become PM without any of those qualifications, if we discount Balfour and Derby due to complications, is the Duke of Wellington in 1828.

 

And he beat Napoleon!

[themaninblack 2,112]

As I said the big offices being held just prior to being PM. Callaghan and Churchill were Home Secretaries/ Chancellors but some time before becoming PM. So in normal circumstances the choice would be between Osbourne & Hammond not May and Leadsom. Still as MSC has worked out, Leadsom becoming PM without holding any of the big jobs is highly unusual...

[msc 18,476]

Oh don't mind me, TMIB, I just saw the opportunity for some political geekery.

 

I dare say Leadsom becoming PM is as likely as someone like Jeremy Corbyn becoming leader of the Labour party...