Also in the news

[Strokes]

34 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

So, Brexiters, on the subject of democracy that you're so fond of discussing:

 

What's democratic about our nation's Prime Minister being decided by 100,000 or so elderly, right-wing voters; what about the democratic rights of the other 46 million electors?

We vote for candidates in a party, we have never directly voted for the prime minister (unless that candidate happens to lead the victorious party). Let's not pretend it's ever been any different.

I do think any changes in leadership of the country should result in a general election within six months but i don't remember many lefties complaining when Gordon Brown took the reins from 07-10 and didn't even have to get voted in by the Labour membership.

[Izzy]

Maybe we should vote for PM the same way the yanks vote for president.

 

I reckon many people's votes are based on the perceived leadership qualities of the candidate more so than their parties policies.

[The Fox Covert]

1 minute ago, Izzy said:

Maybe we should vote for PM the same way the yanks vote for president.

 

I reckon many people's votes are based on the perceived leadership qualities of the candidate more so than their parties policies.

Just what has Trump got that spells leadership quality???

This is the man who was out with his ex-wife, saw Melania and decided there and then that she was to be his next trophy wife.

A man who daily makes a fool of himself with his asinine sound bites on Twitter. Water-bombing Notre Dame? Did he even have the slightest idea what might happen if an already unstable structure is suddenly hit by tons of water?

[davieG]

The Candidates and potential candidates.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48395611

[Izzy]

1 minute ago, The Fox Covert said:

Just what has Trump got that spells leadership quality???

This is the man who was out with his ex-wife, saw Melania and decided there and then that she was to be his next trophy wife.

A man who daily makes a fool of himself with his asinine sound bites on Twitter. Water-bombing Notre Dame? Did he even have the slightest idea what might happen if an already unstable structure is suddenly hit by tons of water?

No idea, you'd have to ask the 63 million Americans who voted for him.

 

[bovril]

I dislike May because of her time as Home Secretary and the deal she did with the DUP. But she was always going to be the sacrificial lamb. She was attacked by people who either had no better solution (Corbyn) or simply don't give a shit (Johnson). Her background worked against her. She is a true believer in the party and she has a set of principles that I really dislike. But it's a set of principles nonetheless, which distinguishes her from Cameron. For that reason I do have a sliver of sympathy for her. 

[Legend_in_blue]

It won't make an ounce of difference who the PM is because the numbers are not there to see this through to a satisfactory conclusion.  

[Buce]

 

 

By Iain Watson Political correspondent, BBC News

 

The resignation of Theresa May has clear consequences for the Conservative Party - the starting gun on a leadership contest has been fired.

But what does it mean for Brexit?

The short answer is that both No Deal and No Brexit are now both more likely.

• Theresa May quits: UK set for new PM
• Tories to choose new leader by end of July
• What Theresa May said in her resignation speech

With Mrs May's "bold new Brexit plan" in tatters, there is no vehicle for leaving the EU with a deal, and the default is that the UK's membership will expire on Halloween.

If that is where things appear to be heading in the autumn, some MPs who previously opposed a second referendum might reconsider if it is the best option for avoiding no deal - putting Brexit at risk.

After all, Jeremy Corbyn - who has been reluctant to weaponise Labour's "option" of a public vote - has said the Labour leadership would back a referendum to avoid either "a bad Tory deal" or "no deal at all".

But Mrs May called "on all sides of the debate" to find a compromise.

A question of compromise

The question is whether, in the short term, the language of compromise is seen as an asset or liability by the Conservative leadership contenders.

MPs will be able to choose from a wide range of options - from Rory Stewart and Matt Hancock, who have been emphasising the need to leave with a deal, through to Dominic Raab and Andrea Leadsom, who certainly don't fear no deal.

But polling evidence suggests many of the Conservative grassroots members don't just want Brexit to happen quickly, but they positively favour leaving without a Withdrawal Agreement.

Once MPs have whittled down the contenders to the final two in June, winning over the party faithful will require the remaining candidates to talk tough.

This will mean, at the very least, that "no deal" is back on the table.

If - for example - the eventual contest was between a former Remainer and a Brexiteer - say Jeremy Hunt or Sajid Javid versus Boris Johnson or Dominic Raab - then to attack their opponent on a wide range of issues, including fitness for high office, the former Remainer would have to dismantle any barrier to their support amongst the wider membership by stressing their willingness to leave with no deal.

Deal or no deal

The One Nation Group of Conservatives, who are largely former Remainers such as Nicky Morgan and Amber Rudd, haven't ruled out backing Boris Johnson - so long as he pivots to the position of at least arguing for a deal with the EU.

So, let's just assume for a moment that this is the position any successor to Mrs May adopts.

The only version of the exiting PM's deal which passed the Commons was at the end of January

This was the so-called Brady amendment (after the chairman of the Conservatives' 1922 committee Sir Graham Brady), which called for a deal and support for the Withdrawal Agreement, but minus the contentious Northern Irish backstop.

This backstop is despised by many Brexiteers as it would keep the UK close to EU regulations in the absence of a trade deal.

 

Following that vote, Mrs May said: "There is a limited appetite for change in the EU, and negotiating it won't be easy."

She was right on both counts.

While there were additional reassurances from Brussels around the backstop, there was no major rewrite, never mind replacing it with unspecified "alternative arrangements".

Now, Mr Johnson believes that more robust negotiation is required and this could unlock a deal.

Mr Javid believes technical solutions to the problem of Irish border checks already exist - but that the EU would have to recognise this.

The backstop barrier

The trouble is, so far, the prospect of a change of leader hasn't led to a change of mind in Brussels.

And the Irish Deputy Prime Minister, Simon Coveney, is already warning that the European Union would not offer the next prime minister a better Brexit deal.

He told an Irish radio station: "This idea that a new prime minister will be a tougher negotiator and will put it up to the EU and get a much better deal for Britain? That's not how the EU works."

What he said the EU would contemplate is a longer extension of Article 50, and a further delay to Brexit.

A new Conservative leader committed to a deal may well have to ask for this.

They would begin their tenancy in No 10 at the height of the European holiday season, and time will be short for any renegotiation.

However, unless the EU is willing to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with Mrs May, there may be little point in long, drawn out discussions.

Mr Johnson confirmed he wouldn't ask for an extension in any case, declaring that the UK would leave on 31 October with or without a deal.

It's possible some of the legislative legwork for a future deal will be done during the dying days of Mrs May's premiership.

For example, uncontentious aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement, such as citizen's rights, could be incorporated into UK law.

But the contentious issues would remain.

Ending the impasse

Assuming a substantially different deal isn't on offer by October, and the Conservatives are led by a Brexiteer who will come out of the EU no matter what, we could be faced with the following scenarios:

• Control of Parliament's legislation is seized once again by MPs opposed to No Deal
• The new prime minister receives a bounce in the polls, and calls an election to break the deadlock and get backing for their approach
• There is an election because enough MPs vote "no confidence" in the government as a way to stop No Deal
• Enough MPs decide to drop their opposition to another referendum - though the means for putting this on the statute books is not entirely clear
• The EU really does blink at the last minute and offer a free trade deal minus the backstop

Mrs May warned of 'division and uncertainty' if MPs didn't pass her deal.

In that respect, at least, she was right.

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Well yeah this is a problem both of the main parties have now created. By prioritising party democracy they've done something wholly undemocratic for the nation whereby a select group of people have paid for the privilege to choose the Prime Minister without being accountable. At least Brown was effectively selected to be unopposed by Labour MPs whom are answerable to the public in at least some way. 

To be fair, there is absolutely nothing in UK law regarding the existence of parties or their place in UK politics, which is why this happens. The issue is people only voting for parties and not independent candidates - largely because people are too lazy to read up on issues so parties naturally form as a part of this because they're an easy shorthand for people to tie their mast to - and people love getting into the sweeping narrative of feeling part of a political faction or movement.

In an ideal world political factions and political parties wouldn't exist - and George Washington famously derided political factions and parties of at the birth of the modern democracy - due to it being the success of Populares faction who saw the downfall of democracy in Rome and Julius Caesar' converting it into a dictatorship. Ironically America of all places has become an entrenched duopoly of political power (as has the UK to be fair or England at least. Scotland is even worse and a virtual monopoly despite the fa the SNP barely get 1/3rd of Scottish votes just because of our hideously outdated political system of which the SNP are the biggest benefactors, even more than the Tories).

So while I completely agree that this leadership campaign is a farce on democracy. Political parties, to be fair to them, don't really have any requirement or need to be democratic in and of themselves and can elect leaders by picking names out of a hat if they like. The issue is the existence of parties and the tribalism the create in the first place which is the farce on democracy - not the way those parties are specifically run. But no one votes independent so it's never going to change.

[Legend_in_blue]

Ending the impasse...

 

...in other words, no Brexit.

[Guest MattP]

In hindsight I can't believe what the "second referendum" faction were doing - I mean what did they think would happen? How did they not see this position coming from what they voted for?

 

I suppose this is what happens when you think Jess Phillips and Caroline Lucas have a better knowledge of Erskine May than Jacob Rees-Mogg and Graham Brady.

[Milo]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

To be fair, there is absolutely nothing in UK law regarding the existence of parties or their place in UK politics, which is why this happens. The issue is people only voting for parties and not independent candidates - largely because people are too lazy to read up on issues so parties naturally form as a part of this because they're an easy shorthand for people to tie their mast to - and people love getting into the sweeping narrative of feeling part of a political faction or movement.

In an ideal world political factions and political parties wouldn't exist - and George Washington famously derided political factions and parties of at the birth of the modern democracy - due to it being the success of Populares faction who saw the downfall of democracy in Rome and Julius Caesar' converting it into a dictatorship. Ironically America of all places has become an entrenched duopoly of political power (as has the UK to be fair or England at least. Scotland is even worse and a virtual monopoly despite the fa the SNP barely get 1/3rd of Scottish votes just because of our hideously outdated political system of which the SNP are the biggest benefactors, even more than the Tories).

So while I completely agree that this leadership campaign is a farce on democracy. Political parties, to be fair to them, don't really have any requirement or need to be democratic in and of themselves and can elect leaders by picking names out of a hat if they like. The issue is the existence of parties and the tribalism the create in the first place which is the farce on democracy - not the way those parties are specifically run. But no one votes independent so it's never going to change.

Not really a fair comparison - The Roman Republic was never particularly democratic, it was always always ruled by the elite who 'knew what was best for the people'. (ring any bells)?! 

 

Caesar came along with a big fvck you and changed the status quo forever...now that might indeed be worth keeping an eye out for  

[String fellow]

Not sure which is more depressing - the thought of Corbyn ending up as PM when all the Brexit dust has settled, or Botswana's decision to allow elephant hunting.

[Guest Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

To be fair, there is absolutely nothing in UK law regarding the existence of parties or their place in UK politics, which is why this happens. The issue is people only voting for parties and not independent candidates - largely because people are too lazy to read up on issues so parties naturally form as a part of this because they're an easy shorthand for people to tie their mast to - and people love getting into the sweeping narrative of feeling part of a political faction or movement.

In an ideal world political factions and political parties wouldn't exist - and George Washington famously derided political factions and parties of at the birth of the modern democracy - due to it being the success of Populares faction who saw the downfall of democracy in Rome and Julius Caesar' converting it into a dictatorship. Ironically America of all places has become an entrenched duopoly of political power (as has the UK to be fair or England at least. Scotland is even worse and a virtual monopoly despite the fa the SNP barely get 1/3rd of Scottish votes just because of our hideously outdated political system of which the SNP are the biggest benefactors, even more than the Tories).

So while I completely agree that this leadership campaign is a farce on democracy. Political parties, to be fair to them, don't really have any requirement or need to be democratic in and of themselves and can elect leaders by picking names out of a hat if they like. The issue is the existence of parties and the tribalism the create in the first place which is the farce on democracy - not the way those parties are specifically run. But no one votes independent so it's never going to change.

You can debate the desirability of political parties, and I probably don't agree with you particularly given the channelling of Washington (unless you are talking solely about a utopian world), but yes this is a consequence of not recognising parties and their function in law, and the norms for what happens when a party changes its leader whilst in government.

 

-------

By handing over the choice of party leadership to the members we have created a situation where a group of people (in this case 125k Conservative members) can pay a small amount of money to directly elect the PM, in fact I'd guess you'd have to go back to the rotten boroughs for the last time a privileged fews could wield such undemocratic power. Moreover, even within the political party it drives a wedge between MPs and members. It's much less of a problem if MPs are choosing the leader cos they are at least in some way accountable to the public and the Executive has to command their confidence which is simpler if the leader isn't imposed on them.

 

It's just another sledgehammer to the constitution, being able to change the PM quickly used to be a strength but that's essentially gone now.

[davieG]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

To be fair, there is absolutely nothing in UK law regarding the existence of parties or their place in UK politics, which is why this happens. The issue is people only voting for parties and not independent candidates - largely because people are too lazy to read up on issues so parties naturally form as a part of this because they're an easy shorthand for people to tie their mast to - and people love getting into the sweeping narrative of feeling part of a political faction or movement.

In an ideal world political factions and political parties wouldn't exist - and George Washington famously derided political factions and parties of at the birth of the modern democracy - due to it being the success of Populares faction who saw the downfall of democracy in Rome and Julius Caesar' converting it into a dictatorship. Ironically America of all places has become an entrenched duopoly of political power (as has the UK to be fair or England at least. Scotland is even worse and a virtual monopoly despite the fa the SNP barely get 1/3rd of Scottish votes just because of our hideously outdated political system of which the SNP are the biggest benefactors, even more than the Tories).

So while I completely agree that this leadership campaign is a farce on democracy. Political parties, to be fair to them, don't really have any requirement or need to be democratic in and of themselves and can elect leaders by picking names out of a hat if they like. The issue is the existence of parties and the tribalism the create in the first place which is the farce on democracy - not the way those parties are specifically run. But no one votes independent so it's never going to change.

For the last ten years or so I’ve always tried to find an independent candidate that I could vote for but it’s very hard as there is always very little choice and often very little info on the candidates.

 

i posted earlier in this thread about the lack of info on any of the candidates in the euros

[Trav Le Bleu]

I have always found it weird that when an MP stands down, it triggers a by-election in which the electorate decide the next incumbent, but when an Prime Minister steps down, the robes of office are either passed on (Gordon Brown) or voted for from within the ruling party (May, or our next PM), with the electorate having no say whatsoever in whom that should be.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

Just now, davieG said:

For the last ten years or so I’ve always tried to find an independent candidate that I could vote for but it’s very hard as there is always very little choice and often very little info on the candidates.

 

i posted earlier in this thread about the lack of info on any of the candidates in the euros

I often find that the independent candidates appear to be even bigger window-lickers than the main party candidates.

[Milo]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

For the last ten years or so I’ve always tried to find an independent candidate that I could vote for but it’s very hard as there is always very little choice and often very little info on the candidates.

 

i posted earlier in this thread about the lack of info on any of the candidates in the euros

Agree with this - the Euro ballot was a bit messy and was pretty much a choice of a Brexit vote or whichever protest vote you preferred from the mixed bag of previously unheard of candidates  

[SouthStandUpperTier]

23 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

You can debate the desirability of political parties, and I probably don't agree with you particularly given the channelling of Washington (unless you are talking solely about a utopian world), but yes this is a consequence of not recognising parties and their function in law, and the norms for what happens when a party changes its leader whilst in government.

 

-------

By handing over the choice of party leadership to the members we have created a situation where a group of people (in this case 125k Conservative members) can pay a small amount of money to directly elect the PM, in fact I'd guess you'd have to go back to the rotten boroughs for the last time a privileged fews could wield such undemocratic power. Moreover, even within the political party it drives a wedge between MPs and members. It's much less of a problem if MPs are choosing the leader cos they are at least in some way accountable to the public and the Executive has to command their confidence which is simpler if the leader isn't imposed on them.

 

It's just another sledgehammer to the constitution, being able to change the PM quickly used to be a strength but that's essentially gone now.

This just reminded me of this.

 

 

[Heathrow fox]

4 hours ago, Buce said:

 

So, Brexiters, on the subject of democracy that you're so fond of discussing:

 

What's democratic about our nation's Prime Minister being decided by 100,000 or so elderly, right-wing voters; what about the democratic rights of the other 46 million electors?

Interesting one this.Brown cocked up massively by not going to the polls when he was still in a good position.May did the exact opposite and went to the polls when she didn’t have too.Both never recovered.I always felt that May and Brown were never actually our Pm’s More like caretaker managers.Both were pretty useless to be honest.

[Spiritwalker]

4 hours ago, Strokes said:

We vote for candidates in a party, we have never directly voted for the prime minister (unless that candidate happens to lead the victorious party). Let's not pretend it's ever been any different.

I do think any changes in leadership of the country should result in a general election within six months but i don't remember many lefties complaining when Gordon Brown took the reins from 07-10 and didn't even have to get voted in by the Labour membership.

I did, I voted for Labour/ Blair not Labour/Brown and complained to anyone who would listen.

To say people vote for a party and not a leader might be constitutionaly correct but it's still wrong.

It could mean a huge shift in polices when a party changes leader especially this early in a term.

 

 

[Strokes]

Just now, Spiritwalker said:

I did, I voted for Labour/ Blair not Labour/Brown and complained to anyone who would listen.

To say people vote for a party and not a leader might be constitutionaly correct but it's still wrong.

It could mean a huge shift in polices when a party changes leader especially this early in a term.

 

 

Apparently when I voted leave, I only voted leave, not a particular type of leave. 

You voted for a candidate of labour.

[Spiritwalker]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Apparently when I voted leave, I only voted leave, not a particular type of leave. 

You voted for a candidate of labour.

I voted for Labour with Blair as PM. If Labour had been upfront and let it be known during their 

campaign that their intention was to replace Blair with Brown midterm then I could have made 

an informed choice. I guess I made a similar ill informed choice as you.

[Strokes]

Just now, Spiritwalker said:

I voted for Labour with Blair as PM. If Labour had been upfront and let it be known during their 

campaign that their intention was to replace Blair with Brown midterm then I could have made 

an informed choice. I guess I made a similar ill informed choice as you.

Looks that way.

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, The Fox Covert said:

Just what has Trump got that spells leadership quality???

This is the man who was out with his ex-wife, saw Melania and decided there and then that she was to be his next trophy wife.

A man who daily makes a fool of himself with his asinine sound bites on Twitter. Water-bombing Notre Dame? Did he even have the slightest idea what might happen if an already unstable structure is suddenly hit by tons of water?

 

5 hours ago, Izzy said:

No idea, you'd have to ask the 63 million Americans who voted for him.

 

They thought he would make them rich/They're nobhead racists and misogynists who got a rush from how he talked about women, Mexicans and other ethnicities/They were just interested in watching the world burn/all of the above*

 

*Delete as appropriate.

 

That all being said, I think Izzy has a point about the image of the leader being more important than party policy in terms of voting in the UK now...and Blair in the UK and Trump in the US are just two examples of that not necessarily being the best thing.