Brexit deal

[Boomstick]

Him or Thatcher would be strong enough.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

No. That's silly. We don't need someone to stiffen our resolve against an existential threat from an implacable enemy.

We need someone to competently organise negotiations, understand the weakness of our position and Marshall the disparate opinions in Parliament.

Churchill was f**king useless at that humdrum stuff. He was the most catastrophic Chancellor of the Exchequer of the 20th century. And his administration in 51-55 was a rolling mess.

[RedJ]

Him or Thatcher would be strong enough.

Wasn't Thatcher keen on Europe?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

You really haven't got the first idea about Thatcher have you?

Thatcher's genius was in instinctively knowing the strength of her hand. That was what made her a good negotiator. She rarely ever overplayed her hand. She compromised and discussed.

Sure, she projected this image of the Iron Lady, taking no prisoners and battering opponents with her handbag. But that was just for the starry-eyed kids to lap up.

As for Churchill, aye, he was a grand negotiator. He negotiated away the whole of Eastern Europe to Stalin in 1944.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Thatcher pretty much came up with the idea of the Single Market. Shows how batshit the current Tory party is that the Single Market is now seen as some plot to enrich the EU at the expense of Britain.

Oh aye. Churchill was all for a United States of Europe too. He also proposed the UK and France merging as a single country. But I'm sure our friends in here know all that.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I guess we can wonder what any of them would have done in this situation.

Interesting when you guys mention PM's who haven't got a mark against them - not one in my lifetime, just an observation.  That's pretty damning don't we think?

So we expect May's deal not to go through, then a no confidence vote is probably likely.  I wonder then what happens next...

[RedJ]

Bare knuckle boxing match in the Commons with Bercow as referee, obviously.

[bobjimwilly]

I wonder when was the last time the government lost a major vote on a major party policy by more than 100 votes?

[Bentley Bullet]

Thatcher pretty much came up with the idea of the Single Market. Shows how batshit the current Tory party is that the Single Market is now seen as some plot to enrich the EU at the expense of Britain.

Oh aye. Churchill was all for a United States of Europe too. He also proposed the UK and France merging as a single country. But I'm sure our friends in here know all that.

Do you mean like a FUK EU merger? Just shows how far-sighted old Winnie was!

[tommy toes]

Tommy

You've got to be careful here.

There are right wingers who immortalise Thatcher and ignore the fact that she failed badly at the end of her term and became a liability.

Labour supporters tend to do the same with Attlee. Yes, he put the country onto another path (a much better one in my opinion, but that's just my opinion). But within 5 years he'd lost his massive majority, and within another year he was in opposition.

Churchill stands above everyone else because he was the person that defined what was required to galvanise the country in the most dangerous moments of our history. Yes Attlee was in the coalition cabinet, and yes it was a collective effort of Govt during the War. But Churchill transcended that and defined the spirit of the nation at a time when it might have broken. If Lord Halifax had become PM in 1940 (and he very nearly did) there would have been a very different outcome to WWII.

I think you are giving Churchill too much credit.
If Hitler had decided to invade Britain instead of losing half of his army in Russia then no amount of rousing speeches would have saved us.
Although the Americans would have - eventually.

[idler]

The thinking now is that Hitler realised that he could never invade us with our navy and Air Force for protection.
He wanted us to sue for peace and let him concentrate on Russia.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I wonder when was the last time the government lost a major vote on a major party policy by more than 100 votes?

I'm wondering what has been the biggest losing margin a PM has ever had without having to resign afterwards.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tommy

The point was that there was a strong movement, certainly in the Tory party, to do a deal with Hitler in 1940. Churchill was emblematic in showing that we weren't, at that time, prepared to deal. That was a historic moment. And he called it right. Albeit, agreed, helped by Hitler's mistakes.

But that's the point. Great politicians, at the key moments, make the right decisions.

Bad politicians make catastrophically wrong decisions. Cameron going for a referendum is a classic example. Go and look at opinion polls for the decade up to 2014-15 about what issues people thought were of vital importance to the country. The EU never came on the radar. It was simply not that big a deal to the country. It WAS a big deal to right wingers in politics, and that's the reason Cameron called the referendum. He did it to try to control his own party and to neutralise UKIP. There was no strategic reason to do so. By calling, then losing the referendum, HE, single-handedly turned the EU into the most important issue in the country. He opened up societal divisions that will take years to heal. He lost us (already...still counting) something like £100bn in lost economic output.

That was the worst political decision since Suez - arguably worse because at least there was a strategic rationale for Suez.

[BillyStubbsTears]

We're in weird times Glyn.

No other PM could have survived a catastrophe like the 2017 GE. No other PM would survive a party vote of confidence in which 60-odd% of her backbenchers voted against her.

The issue is that no-one else in the Tory party wants to own the Brexit process, because there's no good outcome for them. They want May to be the lightning conductor and THEN knife her when Brexit's done.

To the best of my knowledge, no PM has ever lost a vote on a major strategic policy by so much as 1 vote, and survived. But May won't resign if she loses by 200 votes tonight.

Bizarre times.

[Filo]

https://news.sky.com/story/the-most-significant-government-defeats-11607946?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Governments have had defeats in the Commons before; but usually on marginal issues, and usually by not very many votes, without there being any pressure for the PM to resign/go to the country just because they've lost the vote. That's what's making me wonder what the previous worst government defeat has been.

[GazLaz]

I think if she gets absolutely hammered in the vote she will resign.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Filo

Interesting list.

MacDonald and Callaghan of course ended up seeing their administration's fall after those votes.

Neville Chamberlain resigned after WINNING a vote by 81 votes after the Norway disaster in 1940, because a large number of his own party voted against him.

I'd forgotten about Cameron losing the Syria vote. In normal times, that should have been a resignation issue.

It's interesting that the dynamics in Parliament have changed. For many, many years, the ruling party had huge majorities so it was almost impossible for them to lose votes. That's very bad for democracy, as the House of Commons is supposed to act as a check on the unlimited power of the Government. We're in different times now. We regularly have small majorities (Major 92-97, Cameron/May 15-17) or coalitions/minority Govts (Wilson/Callaghan 74-79, Cameron 10-15, May 17-). In those circumstances, the HoC really does have power and can restrict the PM's authority.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Gaz. It's a fair bet that she'll lose by pushing 200 votes. It is astonishing that a PM could lose like that on something so important and not resign. But I'll bet you she doesn't.

[Donnywolf]

Id go for 80 defeat - and no resigning (pure guess on the first bit - not the second)

[Filo]

Id go for 80 defeat - and no resigning (pure guess on the first bit - not the second)

Sky news are saying 200+

[RedJ]

Filo

Interesting list.

MacDonald and Callaghan of course ended up seeing their administration's fall after those votes.

Neville Chamberlain resigned after WINNING a vote by 81 votes after the Norway disaster in 1940, because a large number of his own party voted against him.

I'd forgotten about Cameron losing the Syria vote. In normal times, that should have been a resignation issue.

It's interesting that the dynamics in Parliament have changed. For many, many years, the ruling party had huge majorities so it was almost impossible for them to lose votes. That's very bad for democracy, as the House of Commons is supposed to act as a check on the unlimited power of the Government. We're in different times now. We regularly have small majorities (Major 92-97, Cameron/May 15-17) or coalitions/minority Govts (Wilson/Callaghan 74-79, Cameron 10-15, May 17-). In those circumstances, the HoC really does have power and can restrict the PM's authority.

Can't quite remember, what made 2013 not normal times?

[bobjimwilly]

the even more worrying consequence of all of this (as a Labour supporter) is when Labour call a general election, even though May is universally seen as a rubbish PM, even more people don't want Corbyn as PM, so no single party will be able to continue in government with a majority. If only Corbyn would give way to a more electable leader, Labour could win a general election with a huge majority.

Very weird times.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Filo

Interesting list.

MacDonald and Callaghan of course ended up seeing their administration's fall after those votes.

Neville Chamberlain resigned after WINNING a vote by 81 votes after the Norway disaster in 1940, because a large number of his own party voted against him.

I'd forgotten about Cameron losing the Syria vote. In normal times, that should have been a resignation issue.

It's interesting that the dynamics in Parliament have changed. For many, many years, the ruling party had huge majorities so it was almost impossible for them to lose votes. That's very bad for democracy, as the House of Commons is supposed to act as a check on the unlimited power of the Government. We're in different times now. We regularly have small majorities (Major 92-97, Cameron/May 15-17) or coalitions/minority Govts (Wilson/Callaghan 74-79, Cameron 10-15, May 17-). In those circumstances, the HoC really does have power and can restrict the PM's authority.

Can't quite remember, what made 2013 not normal times?

It being a coalition made it a slightly abnormal time to start with - the government was defeated by votes against by both Tory and Libdem MPs.

[tommy toes]

the even more worrying consequence of all of this (as a Labour supporter) is when Labour call a general election, even though May is universally seen as a rubbish PM, even more people don't want Corbyn as PM, so no single party will be able to continue in government with a majority. If only Corbyn would give way to a more electable leader, Labour could win a general election with a huge majority.

Very weird times.

My thoughts exactly. I was a staunch Corbynista at the last election, but the real worry is that even with this shambles in government Labour could still not win the next one and whether people's views on Corbyn are justified or not, a more moderate leader would see them through.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

the even more worrying consequence of all of this (as a Labour supporter) is when Labour call a general election, even though May is universally seen as a rubbish PM, even more people don't want Corbyn as PM, so no single party will be able to continue in government with a majority. If only Corbyn would give way to a more electable leader, Labour could win a general election with a huge majority.

Very weird times.

Agree with this actually. Plus Corbyn isn't going to push for what the labour people will want.  I do think another Tory leader could win an election.  May probablt should go but there's no replacement is there?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tommy.

Been my concern on Corbyn all along. Labour aren't reaching out to enthuse large swathes of the electorate. They have 30-odd% in the polls because they are Not Tory and Not Explicitly Pro-Brexit and at present there is no other NT and NEPB alternative in England because of the LDs having collapsed.

Problem for Labour was highlighted by the poll before Xmas. If Corbyn goes into a GE saying he will see Brexit through, Labour support drops to 22% and the LDs go up to 25%.

The real situation might not pan out like that precisely but it does show how potential vulnerable Labour's current support is.

It's a simple enough issue. Labour have never won power without building a base that brings in supports from the centre as well as the Left. While ever the more aggressive Corbynistas are using "centrist" as a term of abuse,Labour will not succeed.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP

Who though?

The Tories have an existential problem over Europe. They need a leader who is strong enough to face both wings down. But the Tory membership are overwhelmingly on the right of the party. So I can't see anyone talented enough to do that job and even if that person existed, I can't see them being chosen by the party.

[RedJ]

Listening to the debate and the Brexiteer MPs seem f**king delusional and incapable of accepting anything based remotely in reality.

Sounds about right.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I have to say, May have a very impressive speech. If you factor out the fact that she painted herself into this corner, she gave a very good argument for why her deal would be the best outcome.

The point is that we are where we are now because SHE has spent the past year ruling out the concept of a second referendum. Had she not been so vehemently against that for reasons of buttressing her own position in the Tory party, or had Labour been better at pushing that perfectly reasonable idea, it would be less toxic now.

So, in her own terms, May made a very good case tonight. But the second referendum is still the only sensible outcome, even though it would cause all sorts of aggro.