New Party leaders

[Bubbles]

Andrea Leadsom

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Leadsom

She also has experience in parliamentary roles also  with Barclays Bank

Haven't seen her in action though, so hard to tell how she comes across.

[Bubbles]

Michael Gove.

Another MP with lots of experience.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove

Seems to have supported some "creationist" schools.

Funny thing is his face appears to be a bit like Rowen Atkinson, as in images of him  captured show him pulling some very odd faces.

Put in Gove in Google and look at images 

He has very expressive, features. Could I take him seriously?

Not sure, the ladies might have it.

 

Look at the others later, work 

[ProfessorDavey]

Andrea Leadsom

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Leadsom

She also has experience in parliamentary roles also  with Barclays Bank

Haven't seen her in action though, so hard to tell how she comes across.

If Leadsom were to be successful, which would mean becoming PM on day 1, she would undoubtedly be the least experienced PM  in living memory, probably for centuries although that's a bit hard to work through.

I cannot think of another PM who hadn't previously been leader of the opposition (and necessarily a successful leader of the opposition), nor held any position in either the cabinet or shadow cabinet.

You might argue that there are times when inexperience doesn't matter, when there aren't really important things to sort out straight away. This isn't one of those times, quite the reverse. The new PM will be pitched straight into the most important political negotiations and decision making in my lifetime. No time for a rookie I think.

[L.A.]

If Leadsom were to be successful, which would mean becoming PM on . . . .

I cannot think of another PM who hadn't previously been leader of the opposition (and necessarily a successful leader of the opposition), nor held any position in either the cabinet or shadow cabinet.

. . .

Alec Douglas-Home and John Major spring to mind.

[jeremyp]

Not the case, except in a situation where a sitting PM stands down mid term.

How is that different to the current situation?

That's the point, and the difference. And I'm not making a partisan party political point - what I am pointing out is that come September we will have a PM voted for by 150,000 people (actually the winning proportion of that) leading the UK and the UK government. Yet throughout the referendum debate we kept getting told that it was the EU that was undemocratic. Hmm.

Yes it sucks, but it is what happened when Blair stood down, when Thatcher was ousted and when Wilson stood down.

I get the irony about democracy, but if you remember people, including you, were pointing out that our democracy is not the shining beacon the Leavers were pretending all through the campaign, but they weren't listening. Why would they start caring about democracy now?

[jeremyp]

Surely anyone can vote for the Labour leader, you just pay your three quite. It  is widely believed that thousands of Tories voted for Corbyn.

You can vote for the Tory leader by joining the Tory party.

[floo]

Michael Gove.

Another MP with lots of experience.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove

Seems to have supported some "creationist" schools.

Funny thing is his face appears to be a bit like Rowen Atkinson, as in images of him  captured show him pulling some very odd faces.

Put in Gove in Google and look at images 

He has very expressive, features. Could I take him seriously?

Not sure, the ladies might have it.

 

Look at the others later, work 

Gove is a nasty backstabbing creep who would bring the UK down just as he scuppered the Education system!

[ProfessorDavey]

Alec Douglas-Home and John Major spring to mind.

Nope:

Douglas-Home was Foreign Secretary from 1960-63 before he became PM
Major held both Foreign Secretary and Chancellor positions prior to becoming PM

Sad that I am, I've looked back as far as the Marquess of Salisbury (PM from 1895 to 1902), and ever single PM has been either a successful leader of the opposition, Foreign Secretary or Chencellor prior to becoming PM.

I got bored at the the Marquess of Salisbury so you can probably go even further back than that to find a PM who attained the position with such limited experience as would be the case if Leadsom won.

[ProfessorDavey]

I got bored at the the Marquess of Salisbury so you can probably go even further back than that to find a PM who attained the position with such limited experience as would be the case if Leadsom won.

Boom found it:

The last PM to attain that position without previously been a successful leader of the opposition, nor having held one of the three great cabinet offices (Chancellor, Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary) was ...

The Duke of Wellington when he became PM in 1828. But he, of course, had teeny, tiny experiential advantage of having won the Battle of Waterloo and defeated Napoleon.

Leadsom's prior experience outside of politics was as an investment banker!!

[jeremyp]

The Duke of Wellington when he became PM in 1828. But he, of course, had teeny, tiny experiential advantage of having won the Battle of Waterloo and defeated Napoleon.

He was very much unelected.

[L.A.]

You can vote for the Tory leader by joining the Tory party.

It will cost you a bit more than £3 though and I think it is too late now to vote in the coming election.

[ProfessorDavey]

He was very much unelected.

As of course was the case regularly then.

The point was about experience not democratic mandate - that said whoever becomes PM in a few weeks time will probably do so on the votes of about 80,000 people.

[Nearly Sane]

Given past precedent and that we do not directly elect PMs, I don't feel that bothered about the next PM being chosen by the party in govt. I feel much more strongly that an election should be called because the party in govt has to do a volte face on Europe, and because I would like to see the proposals of other parties to this brave new world.

[Nearly Sane]

This is a couple of weeks old but no less valid for that in relation to the current farce


http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/trump-boris-i-wouldn-t-write-thick-it-now-politics-already-feels-fictional

[Brownie]

Yes  .

[ProfessorDavey]

Given past precedent and that we do not directly elect PMs, I don't feel that bothered about the next PM being chosen by the party in govt. I feel much more strongly that an election should be called because the party in govt has to do a volte face on Europe, and because I would like to see the proposals of other parties to this brave new world.

I agree - we don't as an electorate directly elect the PM, but the PM needs a mandate from the public. None of the candidates for the tory leadership has a mandate for anything and given that they might be deciding on radically differing flavours of Brexit (from EEA with free movement, though to no access to single market and massive restrictions on free movement) they need a mandate for that.

Arguably there is a mandate for Brexit - there is certainly no mandate for a specific kind of Brexit.

[jeremyp]

None of the candidates for the tory leadership has a mandate for anything and given that they might be deciding on radically differing flavours of Brexit (from EEA with free movement, though to no access to single market and massive restrictions on free movement) they need a mandate for that.

Arguably there is a mandate for Brexit - there is certainly no mandate for a specific kind of Brexit.

When you think about it, this is unbelievable. Everybody was so caught up in the question of "should we be in the EU?" that nobody, neither Leaver nor Remainer, seems to have asked the question "what should we do instead?" Looking back on it, the idea of having a vote on leaving the EU without a clear idea of what we are going to do next is utterly stupid.

Hindsight, I love it.

[wigginhall]

Brexit was like a Rorschach inkblot, it meant something different for everybody who looked at it.  No wonder Boris quit. 

[ProfessorDavey]

When you think about it, this is unbelievable. Everybody was so caught up in the question of "should we be in the EU?" that nobody, neither Leaver nor Remainer, seems to have asked the question "what should we do instead?" Looking back on it, the idea of having a vote on leaving the EU without a clear idea of what we are going to do next is utterly stupid.

Hindsight, I love it.

I think a lot of people were asking 'what does Brexit actually look like' - but it isn't an easy question, it doesn't have an easy answer so the media narrative ignored it.

So the 48% remainers were clear what they were for (being in the EU) the 52% leavers were clear what they were against (being in the EU - kind of ish) but were a very, very broad church as to what they were for. Anything from like Norway so uber-isolationist xenophobia).

My preference would be as follows:

1. Check whether triggering article 50 can be reversed once it has been done. Probably given that it has to be triggered by the member state themselves and probably can by revoked prior to the point of formal exit.

2. If 1 is OK, then trigger article 50.

3. Negotiate with the EU on the basis of getting what the government perceives is the best deal.

4. Finalise those negotiations so that there is a very, very clear view on what Brexit actually is - so for example being a member of the EEA. Agree that deal formally in parliament as the settled view on the post-Brexit arrangement.

5. Hold a second referendum asking the public to chose between the negotiated Brexit deal or remaining a member.

6. If the vote is for the Brexit deal, accept that deal leave EU

7. If the public prefer to be in the EU rather than the actual Brexit deal, withdraw article 50 - remain in EU.

There would probably need to be a general election somewhere there too.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

You will never make a politician, you are far to honest, sensible and intelligent for such a....................................... okay! okay!! there must be some honest, sensible, intelligent politicians, but where are they?

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

You will never make a politician, you are far to honest, sensible and intelligent for such a....................................... okay! okay!! there must be some honest, sensible, intelligent politicians, but where are they?

Gonnagle.

Thanks - I did run for elected office once (well actually twice) for my local council. I lost both times!!

[L.A.]

I think a lot of people were asking 'what does Brexit actually look like' - but it isn't an easy question, it doesn't have an easy answer so the media narrative ignored it.

So the 48% remainers were clear what they were for (being in the EU) the 52% leavers were clear what they were against (being in the EU - kind of ish) but were a very, very broad church as to what they were for. Anything from like Norway so uber-isolationist xenophobia).

My preference would be as follows:

1. Check whether triggering article 50 can be reversed once it has been done. Probably given that it has to be triggered by the member state themselves and probably can by revoked prior to the point of formal exit.

2. If 1 is OK, then trigger article 50.

3. Negotiate with the EU on the basis of getting what the government perceives is the best deal.

4. Finalise those negotiations so that there is a very, very clear view on what Brexit actually is - so for example being a member of the EEA. Agree that deal formally in parliament as the settled view on the post-Brexit arrangement.

5. Hold a second referendum asking the public to chose between the negotiated Brexit deal or remaining a member.

6. If the vote is for the Brexit deal, accept that deal leave EU

7. If the public prefer to be in the EU rather than the actual Brexit deal, withdraw article 50 - remain in EU.

There would probably need to be a general election somewhere there too.

I have a feeling that there is no turning back once we have triggered article 50, so we either just go for a second referendum (which virtually everyone says would be unacceptable) or dive-in with article 50 and start negotiation for a Norway deal.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Prof,

You will never make a politician, you are far to honest, sensible and intelligent for such a....................................... okay! okay!! there must be some honest, sensible, intelligent politicians, but where are they?

Gonnagle.

Most of the ones in this country are.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Most of the ones in this country are.

Which country would that be??

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have a feeling that there is no turning back once we have triggered article 50, so we either just go for a second referendum (which virtually everyone says would be unacceptable) or dive-in with article 50 and start negotiation for a Norway deal.

Problem with that is that a Norway style deal would necessarily involve free movement. Now actually for remainers Norway style EEA membership is the best non-EU membership outcome. But it would have many, many brexiters spitting blood. To a brexiter driven by a desire to curb migration EEA Norway style is frankly no better than EU membership, arguably even worse as we'd be required to grant free movement to all new EU accession states but wouldn't have a veto over whether they could join.

So there would be no mandate from the public for EEA Norway style deal.

Hence my view will be that, probably in 2018 once negotiations are complete the government will need to put the actual Brexit deal to the electorate in a referendum (rather than previous referendum where there was nothing to indicate what Brexit actually meant).

And this is actually rather similar to the views I had on IndyRef - a two stage approach - first referendum to give a mandate to negotiate a deal for independence - a second referendum once the deal was agree to actually action it and become independent (or otherwise).

These decisions are frankly far too important to be a one-off event - there needs to be checks and balances to ensure that:

1. There is a clear and settled view from the public on the course of action and

2. That what the public are agreeing to is absolutely clear, in other words a binding deal.