Corbyn premiership moves step closer with Tory rebellion/constitutional law?

As the SKWAWKBOX showed on Monday night, expert constitutional lawyers say that if Theresa May is unable to pass her Queen’s Speech – already delayed by her inability to reach agreement with a demanding DUP that is spooked by the vehemently negative reaction to it among Britons – Jeremy Corbyn will automatically become Prime Minister by legal convention and precedent:

gardiner

For May’s Queen’s Speech to be defeated requires, based on an effective total of 643 MPS (seven Sinn Fein MPs do not take their seats) and assuming that all ten DUP MPs back the Tories, a total of at least twelve Tory MPs to rebel against their leader – preferably twenty or more to offset the possibility of a few right-wing blairites deciding to betray their party and the country by supporting the Tories.

Either number may sound unlikely. But in the current febrile situation in the Conservative party, the obvious conclusion is unlikely to be the correct one.

On Monday evening, Tory Peer and Brexit minister George Bridges announced his resignation.

bridges.png

At the same time, another senior member of the Dept for Exiting the EU was sacked:

david jones sacked.png

As the Spectator observed, this looks like the beginning of an unravelling – and worse was to come, with ITV political editor Robert Peston revealing:

peston brexit.png

He will ‘have them with the help of Labour’ – sounds like someone is very angry with May and her ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ lie. It also sounds like an organised rebellion – multiple MPs, as one MP on his own cannot ‘have’ the government.

A significant number of Tory MPs are known to be angry with the Prime Minister and to want revenge.

It could be that we’ve just moved a big step closer to a Corbyn premiership – and that May’s panic-move of delaying a Queen’s Speech for the first time in history is not going to be enough to save her and the Tory party.

The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you found this information helpful and can afford to, please do click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your support so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

26 responses to “Corbyn premiership moves step closer with Tory rebellion/constitutional law?

  1. Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
    “A significant number of Tory MPs are known to be angry with the Prime Minister and to want revenge.

    It could be that we’ve just moved a big step closer to a Corbyn premiership – and that May’s panic-move of delaying a Queen’s Speech for the first time in history is not going to be enough to save her and the Tory party.”

    Liked by 2 people

  2. To get the maths exactly right it’s 642 voting MPs – 650 less 7 Sinn Fein less 1 Speaker.

    I’m not sure that even the most fervent anti May Conservative MPs will make the choice to move their party from government to opposition.

    Similarly I’m not sure that any Labour MPs would choose to continue in opposition if there were a chance of government.

    As the Parliament progresses however, I am sure that some odd alliances will emerge on non government toppling votes.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Pingback: Corbyn premiership moves step closer with Tory rebellion/constitutional law? | Jaffer's blog·

  4. Pingback: Corbyn premiership moves step closer with Tory rebellion/constitutional law? | paulh121·

  5. I can understand well the scepticism about whether any group of Tory MPs might act to chuck their party out of power; they have a massive survival instinct to the extent they would sell their body parts to stay in government – which is more or less what they are doing. However, I don’t think we can dismiss the idea that what used to called Tory ‘wets’ would be prepared to vote ‘their’ Government out of office. I’ve used scare quotes because I really don’t think the ‘soft-Brexit/Remainer Tories MPs no longer see it as their Government, any more than Labour First types see Corbyn as ‘their’ leader.

    The reasons for this is that the Tories have taken an unprecedented number of hits, any of one of which is a major problem but together amount to something that could lead to desperate attempts to avoid a hard Brexit and save the Tory Party in the medium to long term. First off, they squandered a massie poll lead, and their leader was shown to have the political judgement and campaigning ability of a sea urchin. There’s the little matter their manifesto offering state sponsore expropriation of private property, as well. It’s also clear that even as the polls turned & Corbyn showed his sheer class as a campaigner, the Tories made no attempt to consider how to cope with a hung parliament, a Corbyn win or any outcome other than their winning a crushing victory. There’s obviously no contingency planning on Fantasy Island.

    This last factor has then led to what if this was happening to the Labour Party would have already been dubbed a constitutional crisis. Because that’s what we’ve got, and one that’s driven by the attempt to get DUP to save the Tories and screw the peace process, because it’s obvious that saving the Tories is more important than protecting British citizens if those citizens live in Northern Ireland. Let’s also add in the charges laid against the Tory MP for Thanet; the investigation into balloting irregularities in Plymouth; questions about Trudi Harrington’s fetching election poster being placed outside Frizington polling station in Copeland; and questions being asked about balloting practices in Hastings – and there’s another line of threats. So a constitutional crisis and the possibility of not being able to keep the MPs they’ve got will be adding to the calm and charming civility that Tory MPs are famed for the world over. I’m not claiming that anything will come of the above but they currently add a little to senior Tory dismay (pun intended).

    As well as all this, the Tories have found that rather than over-running Labour’s traditional strong points, they’ve lost seats in their heartlands. They went on the offensive and lost. Finally, and this is important, the Tories’ media arm (including the BBC and Guardian et al) failed to deliver. The Skwawkbox carried an interesting article about changes to media ecology, and recognises that GE2017 has been very much a media war, which the MSM lost. The Tories are now relying on clearly declining media segments; the MSM is actually no longer the mainstream and cannot control the politcal narrative. It will also be interesting to see if the Tories’ £1.2 million splurge on Facebook dark ads is accepted by the Electoral Commission.

    In view of this lot, it’s no stretch at all to see certain Tories preferring a defeat that would, as they see it, leave Labour struggling with intractable issues that the Tories could capitalise upon to secure a return to office at the next general election. They may see this as a chance to modernise the Tory party – at least to the late middle ages – and to fight ideological battles against the idea of the Tory party’s UKIP tendency. John Major’s administration limped on to an electoral kicking and a number of Tory MPs will remember the experience and won’t want to repeat it. It’s a sort of mirror version of the Labour right’s ‘logic’, and shows the precisely the same touching faith in the durability of the political centre ground.

    Finally, I’m talking possibilities: the Tories may just manage to crawl on (the message going out from one Secretary of State is that they are aiming for two years) but they have never ever faced a situation like this, and I don’t think any party has. I can’t shake the sense that they are genuinely close to the point of no return, the point at which they would cease to function as a coherent parliamentary organisation, so we might yet see desperate times informing some truly desperate actions.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I was taking that seriously until I read the bit about the Guardian being part of the Conservatives’ media arm.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. It’s also the same Guardian that has run a two-year long campaign against Corbyn’s leadership. I well remember its swooning over Cameron’s Conference speech attacking Corbyn. I also recall that not too long ago the Guardian carried an article suggesting Theresa May was pursuing a left agenda. A number of their columnists also appeared to in the act of preparing, with great sadness and regret etc, to switch their support to the Tories. I was surprised that the Guardian endorsed Labour, and wonder if this was partly driven by its poor financial position,- last financial year’s losses were, I think, over £176 million. The excellent Media Lens site has documented and analysed the Guardian’s attitude to Corbyn in detail, and has recently stressed the ideological nature of its opposition to his leadership.

    Like

  8. Well, you linked to some recent articles. Can you show a trend of supporting the leadership of the party and its politcal orientation/ideology over the last two years?

    Like

      • @skwawkbox

        Still on playing the man and not the ball? Surely if someone claims something which seems, frankly, ludicrous it’s legitimate to ask how the claim can be justified and also to provide some rebuttal evidence.

        @adhd960

        I did miss that. The graph, taken at face value, shows the Guardian at 70% positive or neutral toward Mr Corbyn personally. It’s important to note that the study quoted did not address party leaning, nor indeed reporting of any other named politician.

        Like

      • No. It shows about 29% negative, about 18% positive and about 53% neutral. You can’t lump the neutral in with the positive and pretend you’ve won – no one is going to buy that. And, what the papers (and the Tory party) did was target Corbyn – that was their MO. They didn’t tend to go for the party, they concentrated on ad hominem attacks on Corbyn himself. Arguing you are right by asserting we will not find the same bias for something that doesn’t exist – piss poor argument.

        Like

      • @ahhd960

        I fear that you’re confusing a 30% negative coverage of Mr Corbyn with the paper’s general stance.

        I know it’s Wikipedia, but the salient points are referenced so I think it’s worth pasting this extract:

        “In the run-up to the 2010 general election, following a meeting of the editorial staff,[123] the paper declared its support for the Liberal Democrats, due in particular, to the party’s stance on electoral reform. The paper suggested tactical voting to prevent a Conservative victory, given Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system.[124] At the 2015 election, the paper switched its support to the Labour Party. The paper argued that Britain needed a new direction and Labour “speaks with more urgency than its rivals on social justice, standing up to predatory capitalism, on investment for growth, on reforming and strengthening the public realm, Britain’s place in Europe and international development”.[125]”

        and this piece in the Guardian from 18 April 2017:

        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/18/the-guardian-view-on-the-2017-general-election-a-poll-that-britain-does-not-need

        A branch of the Conservative “media arm” – I think not.

        Like

  9. MAY LOVES TO TELL US SHE WON’T SHOW HER POKER HAND OF A TEN HIGH!
    OR TAKE ALL THE LEADERS OF EACH PARTY IN PARLIAMENT TO NEGOTIATE WITH 27 LEADERS IN THE EU.
    SHE LOVES TO GAMBLE WITH OUR LIVES!
    WHEN SHE CRASHES OUT IT WON’T MATTER TO HER AND HER RICH CRONIES IN BIG BUSINESS, BANKS OR HER SO CALLED FREINDS, THEY HAVE THE WEALTH TO WEATHER ANY STORM THAT SHE CREATES.
    THAT WEALTH BELONGS TO US THE TAX PAYERS WHICH THEY GLIBLY GAVE AWAY AT THE START OF THEIR STINT IN PARLIAMENT TO ALL THE WEALTHY AND BIG BUSINESS!
    AUSTERITY TO THESE PEOPLE DOESN’T MEAN ANYTHING!
    IT JUST DOESN’T EFFECT THEM LIKE IT DOES THE ORDINARY PEOPLE.

    Like

  10. Last words on this subject. Producing some recent Guardian articles and two overview pieces doesn’t establish any evidential basis for an overall leaning (your words). Doesn’t come close. Pretty convincing evidence of sealioning, ie. “agressive cluelessness”, though.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s