Did MPs do that to Churchill?
Pretty much spot on.
The Telegraph is reporting that 166 MPs have said that they’ll back her. This is sufficient for her to survive.
Yup!
Primarily for non-UK who might be thinking, Surely she can’t be the best there is? There’s really no-one better…?
Well, that idea has been tested:
“According to a YouGov survey, none of Theresa May’s potential successors are more likely to make a good prime minister than a bad one…Not one successor is seen as capable of negotiating a better Brexit deal by a majority of Britons or Conservative voters.”
BTW, this thread achieves a remarkably high score for fitness for purpose. If there was anything which currently could make me feel proud to be British, this might be it.
j
It’s all very simple. Having had an election in 2016 to determine their choice for Party leader, the Tories are now taking into consideration all that has happened and all they have learned in the last two years and have decided that the best course of action is to have a second vote to see if their choice in 2016 was still the best one or whether they wish to pursue a different path.
A neat idea. I wonder if that could apply to any other circumstances?
Of course. The Commons can be quite rowdy at times, and the role of the Opposition is to continually challenge the PM and the government, probing for weak spots.
One of the standard entries in Hansard is:
"Some Hon. Members: ‘Oh, oh!’ "
It means that there’s some barracking going on. If it gets to the point that it’s difficult to hear the MP who is speaking, the Speaker will rise and politely remind the Hon. Members of the right of the Member to address the House, and the right of the House to hear the Member who is speaking.
I’m not a Conservative, never voted for them in my life, but I do remember talking to my friend Robin about Theresa May on the day the Conservative party elected her leader (and also PM, as the Conservatives were in power). I’m sure I’ll learn to loath her, I said, but I just want to be able to remember the intense feeling of relief that I feel right now.
Nothing new to report, really. I have learned to loath her* and I still feel relieved that she was elected.
She will win tonight. For which, a small Thank God.
j
-
- in particular for her role in the Windrush Scandal
British politics has always been something of a political bearpit with MPs often baying for the head of a Minister or better still a Prime Minister over some issue. Normally the party in power has enough MPs to pass legislation. Usually they have more MPs that the other parties combined.
But in the past few elections, the numbers have not worked out that well and the party with the most MPs has to rely on smaller parties to support them voting for important pieces of legislation. This is a ‘coalition’ politics, which is fairly standard in the European countries, but not so much in the UK first past the post electoral system.
May heads a government without an overall majority and she relies the small Northern Irish Ulster Unionist party for support. Moreover the Brexit question is very divisive within her party with several factions with conflicting interpretations of what it actually means.
With a small majority a government can usually expect some dissent from within its own ranks. But over this issue they are fighting like ferrets in a sack. Brexit carries with it a whole host of political baggage regarding sovereignty, immigration, international trade and international relations dating from the WW2.
UK Prime Ministers have to be smart political operators and devise ways of keeping support and delivering some kind of political programme.
May leads a weak, divided party and her political program has only one aim: to deliver Brexit.
Despite trying very hard, she has not managed to agree a plan for leaving the EU that satisfies the factions within her own party. Indeed the Labour party is also divided and the British voters are also in several minds about what it means and how to go about it.
No-one told the voters that undoing 40 years of trading agreements was going to be difficult. But the Referendum invested the issue with a powerful political imperative to deliver it.
The fact is that it is going to be too difficult and too expensive, but no politician seems to have the guts to say this out loud lest it offend the voters.
Whether any other politician can do a better job than May is open to question. For ambitious politicians this is a dilemma. To have a political career defined by success in completing this hopeless task is not the stuff of historical legend.
The country urgently needs to turn away from this divisive issue and get on with normal politics arguing about the usual stuff: Education, Healthcare, Taxes - not this international trade treaty that few people really understand.
We will find out in couple of hours if May has survived her Parties internal no-confidence vote. She will win it, but it is a very clear measure of her authority in her party. Depending on how much support she has been able to muster will define whether she will be able to continue as party leader.
Support for her as PM is a vote on the support she has within her party for the Brexit Withdrawal agreement.
Someone told me it was like turkeys voting for Christmas.
I would vote no-confidence.
I suppose we will have our results in an hour or two.
21:00 GMT, although why it takes an hour to count 317 bits of paper I don’t know.
Does it take that long to get them all to shut up and vote?
She wins 200 - 117. What that means politically is anyone’s guess.
Well, I would have lost quite a bit on that bet. A general election would have served as a second referendum.
F***.
(Bolding mine)
So what would the mechanism be to compel a vote of confidence in the Commons?
The Leader of the Opposition (Jeremy Corbyn for Labour, at the moment) or the Government itself (somewhat less likely, I feel) moves a motion of confidence. If either of those two do it, then there will be a vote. Smaller opposition parties can try, but it’s less likely to get very far.
In theory, any MP can submit a motion of confidence in the Commons at any time. It just isn’t normally done because the result is usually a foregone conclusion and Parliamentary time is limited and precious.
Wikipedia has an article here.
What happens after a vote of No Confidence is successful is detailed in the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. Simplified, there’s a period of two weeks in which someone can form a government. If that fails, Parliament is prorogued and a General Election is called.
Well, this is another vote I will have to respect, even if I don’t like it.