Breaking: May survives Tory no-confidence vote but nay vote far bigger than predicted

Theresa May has survived a no-confidence vote by Tory MPs – but the 117 who voted against her is far higher than commentators expected and represents a serious blow to her authority and credibility.

The margin would have been tighter had she not promised to quit before the next general election – and the cheers of her supporters had a hollow ring.

May’s survival is good news for Labour, as it maximises the chances of further estrangement of the DUP and of a successful vote of no confidence in the entire government, when Labour decides the time is right to table it – and in the meantime, the Tories are saddled with the lamest of ducks.

The size of of the ‘no’ vote and the further dents it means are even better news for all who want to see a better, fairer country under a Labour government.

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

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

29 responses to “Breaking: May survives Tory no-confidence vote but nay vote far bigger than predicted

  1. Forgive me for indulging in nostalgia but does anyone else miss those halcyon days when we could gain some superficial comfort from the knowledge that we could at the very least rely on being continuously reminded of May’s natural leadership skills by the oft repeated mantra of ‘Strong and Stable’.

  2. So assuming 36 cabinet members plus herself voted aye. Reality is 163 ayes..117 nayes

    • …….and in the unlikely event that all her ministerial colleagues supported her that would mean just over 20 of her backbenchers supported her. Hardly a ringing endorsement from those not obligated to support her.

  3. A new Tory leader could expect the usual honeymoon period – being given the benefit of the doubt and time to get up to speed in a new job.
    May’s honeymoon period wouldn’t las… UGH, sorry, I keep throwing up into my mouth for some reason, got to go…

  4. Pingback: Breaking: May survives Tory no-confidence vote but nay vote far bigger than predicted | The SKWAWKBOX | Britain Isn't Eating!·

  5. It is significant that May’s victory speech concentrated so much time on precisely the issues that Jeremy challenged her about during this week’s PMQ.

  6. Pingback: Breaking: May survives Tory no-confidence vote but nay vote bigger than expected | sdbast·

  7. A very good result for Labour. May has won. She can’t be challenged for a year. Her friends can claim a victory. But she has lost nearly all of her authority. 117 Tory MPs who don’t want her. It’s a tribute to Jerremy Corbyn keeping his nerve when everyone was shouting for a no confidence resolution, and letting the Tories destroy themselves.

  8. Play the long game ,, patience ,, who cares if May survived, the prize is the destruction of the Tories (they are doing a great job so far). They will now continue on that trajectory, she has no other plan/choice..the deal will fail and so Will their Govt
    The resulting Brexit will be catastrophic for the UK . Time thats all that matters now and they are out of it

  9. Pingback: May’s charmed life continues, but you can sense the luck running out. | TheCritique Archives·

    • It is rather a long article so could you help us all out by picking out the salient points that highlight these ‘deeper underpinnings’. It would also have an advantage from your perspective because it would make the points you are making more accessible.

      • It’s a bit of a dog’s dinner, which – obviously – rubbishes the Tories, but also Labour (and Mao):

        “Moreover, the country is right. Labour has had nothing sensible to say about Brexit since the referendum.”

        I think it’s trying to locate an alternative universe rather than suggest anything practical.

      • I got a similar impression after having very quickly scan read it myself. I really couldn’t be bothered to wade through it the hope that I could glean whatever point Danny was trying to get across. It is disappointing, if not unexpected, that Danny hasn’t clarified which sections of the article he thought were particularly pertinent to the point he was trying to get across.

      • At the risk of pre-empting Danny, and raising hackles for my presumption in butting in, the following sums up the kernel of a brilliantly insightful article:

        “All of the mainstream political parties bought into the EU project. They became increasingly estranged from their traditional supporters, having to defend rigid neoliberal policies to their voters, rather than conveying their voters’ interests into parliament. Parties atrophied, losing their ability to develop societal interests into contending policy platforms, converting into mere electoral machines. The civil service, following their political masters, became deeply networked with their European counterparts. In this sense, the EU was “the end of politics”.

        It is hardly surprising, then, that every mainstream party campaigned for Remain. Having ceased to represent British voters and offer visions for the nation’s future, they simply could not imagine a future for themselves or the country outside of the European Union. 75 percent of MPs voted to Remain, versus just 48 percent of the public – exposing their non-representativeness. The hysterical reaction to the Leave vote reflected elite panic at being torn away from European policy networks. Both sides quickly coalesced around trying to minimise the “disruption” caused by Brexit…

        It is understandably tempting to respond to this chaos by demanding a second referendum to cancel Brexit, but it is deeply misguided to think that this would resolve the crisis of Britain’s representative democracy. Calling a second referendum would only underscore the void between the electorate and their so-called representatives, by declaring openly that parliament refuses to carry out the voters’ expressed wishes. This may even widen the void by demoralising millions of citizens who always suspected that voting made no difference. Indeed, effective voter suppression seems to be what the so-called People’s Vote campaign is hoping for, with their callous reminders that many Leave voters have died since 2016, and their hope that others would not turn out.

        This is an extremely dangerous outcome to hope for. When citizens feel their voices are ignored, they can either withdraw into apathy, or cast protest votes, such as supporting the British National Party or the UK Independence Party. Brexit was the biggest protest vote of all. It was an acid test of whether the British political establishment will resume its proper function of representing the British people. The shambolic record of the last two years shows just how deep the rot had gone; an elite reluctant to follow the majority’s will, prevaricating and concocting a deal to minimise any change to the status quo, or actively plotting to thwart the referendum outcome. It is ludicrous to think, as some “People’s Vote” campaigners suggest, that political parties have heard the people’s cries and, if Brexit is cancelled, they will finally respond to their concerns. They are clearly unwilling to be disciplined by their own electorate, and the absurd nostalgia of ultra-Remainers for the supposed halcyon days of pre-referendum Britain betrays their own lack of a transformative vision. A second referendum would only deepen the crisis of representation, widening the gulf where populists thrive.”

        It’s as ludicrous as thinking that if only the establishment could finally frame Trump and replace him with Clinton, the anger that put him into office would somehow go away. It really won’t. That anger is caused by declining standards of living. If no one addresses that, and Brussel’s reaction to Italy’s budget shows what happens when they do, then we are heading for very serious social conflict, in or out of the EU.

      • I haven’t clicked on the piece Danny linked to because the length of it put Steve off and I’m way less patient – but I did read Forthestate’s intro and first para – if I’m right and it’s just another attempt to explain neoliberalism, where it came from and why it’s so hard to kill it doesn’t take that much space.

        The Big Bang and auto-trading made a million times more money for everyone than the South Sea Bubble and looked like it would last forever so from Day2 the choice was to jump on board or be impoverished by inflation.
        Making money from moving other people’s money around was a lot easier than making widgets, building houses or curing the sick so every smart 80’s fucker wanted to work in the City and run a Porsche.
        When cracks started to appear governments in panic legislated it into permanence and from ’08 had to start feeding it QE money and us bullshit about fucking austerity.

        If they ever let us see the truth – that it’s worse than a plague of zombies – we’d drag them from their beds and hang them from lamp posts.
        I can trim it a bit if that’s too long.

      • “if I’m right and it’s just another attempt to explain neoliberalism…”

        It isn’t. The four paragraphs I quoted come from the end of the article, which, as they make clear, is about whether the British political establishment will resume its proper function of representing the British people. Since you’re commenting on it, you could aways read it and find out what it’s about instead of just guessing.

      • You’re right, I should have read it – then I wouldn’t have given it the credit of assuming it would be an attempt to explain anything.
        A whole bunch of assertions running around trying to prove a nonexistent point – Mrs. Doyle School of Economics alumnus apparently.

      • “You’re right, I should have read it”. Indeed. It’s a useful trick if the comment is to have any chance of being relevant.

      • Really? That’s the part of my reply you choose to respond to?
        No defence of the rambling, evidence free exercise in academic onanism that you thought educational?

      • “Really? That’s the part of my reply you choose to respond to?”

        Indeed. It’s the only bit that’s relevant. The rest is just the usual, unsubstantiated and aggressive unpleasantness you excel in, which requires no comment.

      • Comrades , having read the whole article and your comments , they are interesting and of value , aside of the hurt feelings , BUT there are some important points to this if I may suggest , that is
        1.It is fine to re-illustrate the failings of Neoliberalism and how it manifested itself in the Brexit vote.
        2.It also illustrates what a basket case the present EU is and it’s total lack of value to the working class , all be it great for big Corp etc.
        3.The analysis works and dovetails nicely with the Novara Media interview re the EU and it’s issues , here https://novaramedia.com/category/video/interview/

        4.Next steps , check out some interesting suggestions by Paul Mason on his Twitter line especially the idea of international co-operation with Portugal and Spain and hopefully France ( under Melechone ) to effect change within the EU power base

    • Depressing but ultimately true article that offers no suggestions as to what happens next. So, we either leave while essentially remaining under worse conditions than are current, or the public are so worn down that they accept the “People’s Vote” option and are corralled through fear into a small majority in favour of remain. Whatever happens, it signals the end of most politicians careers. The Labour party will be particularly hard hit and the party will bounce back with Blairism 2.0, though the rehabilitation of Blair himself will be on the back burner.
      I agree with the pessimistic outlook of the article, a whole generation of leave voters will be disenfranchised completely and we will never be able to have another referendum on any matter. For the foreseeable future, the Liberal hegemony will be in power, with left and right splintered. I foresee trouble from dissenters and an authoritarian backlash.
      The next time we will have the opportunity of disentangling ourselves from the EU won’t arise until there is an existential crisis that splits the union. None of the problems facing the EU have been addressed, it’s still dump the Euro or become a federation and we in Britain are still on the edge of Europe, with half the country despising Brussels. Populism is on the rise and another financial crash will split the continent apart, fixed budgets, eternal austerity, low wages and unemployment resulting from the next crash is our future.

  10. It would appear a number of Tory MPs lied about their voting intentions. Not really a good look for the self proclaimed bastions of democracy.

Leave a Reply to john Cancel reply