The Just Political Party – The New Centrist and Bremain Party

Westminster is in crisis.

The Labour party is set to split in two, between Socialist Corbynistas and more centrist Social Democrats.

The Conservative government has a Brexit agenda. Yet substantially more Conservative MPs supported Remain than Brexit in the recent referendum.   So Europe still threatens to tear the Conservative party apart too. 

In this context it was reported in the Observer/Guardian that there are serious talks between centrist Remainers from both the Conservative and Labour parties to form a new centrist party.  They found a lot of common ground whilst campaigning together during the referendum, and talks are at ministerial level.  But a new party would take weeks to get through the registration process.

The Just Political Party fills this centrist and pro-EU brief.  Here and now.


THE JUST POLITICAL PARTY - OVERVIEW AND CORE PRINCIPLES

The Just Political Party is a centrist party with the registered description “GREAT ASPIRATIONS. GREAT BRITAIN”.

There are four Core Principles that link the centre left (Social Democrats) with the centre right (Tory Modernisers):

1. Personal Aspiration and equality of opportunity for all - the ‘One Nation’ principle
2. Social Justice for those in need - hence the name “Just”
3. Strong financial management of the UK’s finances – promoting growth and creating jobs by balancing spend with the need to control the national debt
4. Support for membership of the European Union to best achieve the principles above

It is anticipated that the initial members will be MPs moving from the two main parties to collaborate in the national interest:

• From the Conservatives, where they are Bremainers who do not wish to be associated with a party with a Brexit agenda
• From Labour, where Bremainers want to make a break from a party that has shifted leftwards and become unelectable

The resulting re-alignment of the parties, including the impact on the LibDems and their important ongoing role, is described here.  This contains some important explanatory diagrams, including this one.

JUST POLITICAL PARTY OBJECTIVES

The four Core Principles translate at the next level into a number of key objectives:

•    ASPIRATION

• Life better tomorrow than today for you, your family, your country and your world
• Supporting ambition and personal choice within a “compassionate capitalist” system
• Equal opportunities, not socialist equality, to provide higher living standards for both richer and poorer

•    SOCIAL JUSTICE

• Compassion and help for those who need it, both practical and financial
• Housing for all, habitable and affordable, through a mix of private and public sector
• NHS free at point of use

•    STRONG ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT OF UK FINANCES AND SPEND

• Living within our means as a country
• Promote investment in business. Create jobs.
• Strong bank regulation
• Invest in education

•    CREATE JOBS

• Encouraging new private sector businesses, and investment in existing businesses
• Creating and protecting jobs in public sector where real value being added to society

•    CONCERN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

• Our planet is our home. It is our responsibility to look after it, not least for our children and grandchildren. This should not be sacrificed in the pursuit of profit
• Ensuring energy security with safest, cheapest options

•    DEFENCE AND FREEDOM

• Strong defence within NATO
• Including a nuclear deterrent

•    TRADE UNIONS AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVE BODIES

• Recognising the right of people to be represented at work, whether by a trade union, professional institute or other representative body

•    EUROPEAN UNION

•  Backing that the UK should Remain in the EU as the best option to support the objectives above

POLICIES

There is the opportunity for initial members to develop the policies that support the objectives, starting with a clean sheet.


HISTORY

The Just Political Party was registered in 2014 with reference PP2520  for purposes of a by-election. However the registration process was not complete in time for that election, and the party has never fielded a candidate in an election.

The only expenditure has been the registration and renewal fees.

The Just Political Party is therefore equivalent to a newly registered party, with a registered Constitution suitable for a centrist party. It is nonetheless anticipated that the constitution will be reviewed and revised if necessary by the initial members.


MEMBERSHIP & DONATIONS

There are 3 membership categories:

(1) Full member: £24 per year (£2 per month)

(2) Concessionary rate: Full membership at £6 per year (50p per month) for:

• Under 25s and mature students
• Serving and former members of the UK’s armed forces
• Unemployed or under-employed – you be the judge

(3) Introductory rate for sitting MPs and members of the House of Lords: £1 per annum

Membership applications are subject to the Terms and Conditions of being a member.

Additional donations are also welcomed, for example:

• £5
• £10
• £25
• £100
• £500
• £1000
• Or any other amount of your choosing

The Just Political Party reserves the right to not accept a donation or application for membership. 

Please note that under the Political Party Elections and Referendum Act 2000 (“PPERA”):

• If you are donating more than £500, you must be on the UK electoral role at the date of the donation
• If you donate £7500 or more the donation has to be reported to the Electoral Commission, who will publish the fact

INVITATION TO SITTING MPs AND LORDS

An invitation is extended to any sitting MP who would sign up to the four Core Principles above, which in essence means you are both:

• Centrist
• Bremainer

A similar invitation is extended to members of the House of Lords.


LEADERSHIP

It is anticipated that initially someone at ministerial or shadow ministerial level will be the  leader of The Just Political Party, chosen from initial MPs joining the Party.  Potential people are listed here

It is anticipated that there will be a full leadership election leader within the next year, with candidates originally from both the Conservative and Labour parties.


THE PARTY MACHINE

It is recognised that a fully functioning party will need a strong Central Office function and the development of an enthusiastic Local Constituency presence.

The party will be recruiting experienced Central Office staff in the near future.  Formal recruitment will take place in due course, but If you are interested please send in your CV soonest using the contact methods at the foot of this posting.

It is anticipated that MPs who are interested in making the move to The Just Political Party will have a number of local supporters who will form the core of their new Constituency Party.

The new Constituency Parties will start afresh, and so there will be no need to split the assets of the existing parties, as has been discussed by the media.


LOCAL AND EUROPEAN ELECTIONS

The initial objective is to have representation in Westminster.  Candidates for local elections and MEPs will follow naturally in due course.


INTERESTED?

If you are an MP interested in this new party, do get in touch as below. We can arrange to meet at Westminster or somewhere else nearby, as suits you.


NOTE FOR MEDIA

Likewise, I would be delighted to talk to members of the TV, radio, print and internet media about The Just Political Party and its aims.

I can be contacted via Twitter @TheJustParty or my business Linkedin account http://bit.ly/29DJ8tT

Published and promoted by CR Challis on behalf of The Just Political Party at The Dairy House, Moneyrow Green, Holyport, MAIDENHEAD, SL6 2ND

Some Thoughts On The Takeover Of ARM. The Price of Brexit?

It has just been announced that ARM Holdings plc is being sold to a Japanese firm, SoftBank for £24.3 billion.

Some people see that as good, some as bad. I can see both sides.

To put the £24,3 billion in context, that is equivalent to the UK Government's total annual spending in 2014-15 on:

• Transport, or 
• Housing and the Environment, or 
• Half the debt interest.

£24.3 billion is also some 25 times ARM's revenues for 2015 of just under £1 billion (some £968 million).  That's over 10 times times a normal valuation of a mature quoted company, where valuation is a similar magnitude to its annual revenues. Looking at mature FTSE100 companies, of a similar valuation ("market capitalisation") the Valuation: Revenues ratio is today, for example:

• Barclays 1.0 (25.3/25.4)
• Associated British Foods 2.0 (25.3/12.8)
• BT plc 2.2 (39.3/17.8)

A higher Valuation:Revenues ratio is primarily due to two factors:

• A higher profit margin, and/or
• Growth potential

The FT headline said the purchase is a "bet on the Interent of Things". This is the idea of connecting devices such as fridges and cars to the internet. That needs at least one microprocessor in each device, and ARM is well placed to provide the designs, as they sell designs under licence to others to manufacture. The potential is enormous.

ARM's valuation is especially high because:

1. The enormous growth potential of the Internet of Things market
2. ARM's high profit margin, as it does not have to bear the costs of maunfacture

THE POLITICAL ANGLE

There's something very fishy going on.

The FT article goes on to say that Softbank's  Chairman and Chief Executive, Mr Son, said that "the deal highlighted his confidence in the UK economy". He either doesn't understand ARM, or was put up to saying it by the UK Government as part of not stopping the sale.

ARM's 2015 accounts clearly shows that almost all of ARM's revenues were to the USA and Far East, and no doubt this will continue. Virtually nothing to do with the EU. Certainly nothing to do with the UK economy, other than these sort of exports being part of the UK's activities:

More likely the drop in the Sterling exchange rate has been the trigger, where SoftBank felt they could afford a price that would be an adequate premium over the current quoted share price to secure ARM directors' agreement. At 1.32 to the US dollar, that is still over10% below pre-referendum levels. That makes ARM much cheaper to a foreign purchaser.

For those who would have liked to see ARM remain British, its sale is part of the price of Brexit.

But there's another interesting angle.

ARM's main UK R&D facility has long been in Cambridge.  But the HQ was until recently in Maidenhead, before a change in senior management.  Theresa May's constituency. She will know the company well.

According to the FT,  Mr Son "capped his move with a phone call to Theresa May". Oh.

Theresa will also know HMV well, which was also based in Maidenhead before the hiatus that resulted in a change in management there too.

Two very different stories:

• One of massive success for ARM as a result of technogical change
• The other the collapse due to technological change. This was due to the competition to HMV's stores from online sales, compunded as a result of VAT exemption for CD/DVD sales from Guernsey. 

But that's getting into matters of international tax and tax havens. That's for another day.

Any Credible Alternatives to the UK's Nuclear Deterrent?

Today the Commons is debating one of the most important topics other than Brexit - officially "Motion relating to the UK's nuclear deterrent" about renewal of the Trident submarines.

There will be all sorts of arguments for Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament, Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament, or the need for a perpetual nuclear deterrent. There are also alternative nuclear-based options.  All options have a bearing on costs and an impact on jobs.

Yet there is one aspect which I rarely hear mentioned, if ever.  Let's imagine a world without nuclear weapons.

But first I should say I'm not a great fan of nuclear weapons. Their use, especially by mistake or by getting into the wrong hands, would be cataclysmic.

Secondly we also have to consider the security risks to the UK in 2016 and beyond, which are different from when Trident was furst commissioned. To what extent are nuclear weapons the answer? They are certainly not the whole answer, but there are still risks where they are very relevant.

So what would the UK's ultimate deterrent be without nuclear wepaons? Where they would be of value?  What would make any despot intent on taking over the UK stop in their tracks?  Would it be chemical? Biological? It would probably have to be something aimed at the despot's homeland. Something very serious indeed!

No doubt the replacement deterrent would carry risks, maybe as high as nuclear weapons if not higher.  The cost may be even higher to develop and deploy safely when not in use. I haven't seen figures.

So I would ask MPs thinking of voting against the motion to have identified at least one clear alternative effective non-nuclear deterrent, and to have considered the risks and cost to be lower. Only then vote against the motion this evening.  Otherwise abstain if you cannot support the motion.

EUref - Who Might Lead a New Centrist Remainers Party?

Last Sunday, the Observer ran an article titled Pro-EU Labour and Tory MPS look at chances of forming a new centrist party”.  We were told that a source at ministerial level had said “talks should be taken seriously”..

Nothing further has apeared since, probably because Andrea Leadsom dropped out of the Tory leadership race the following day, and Theresa May was crowned Prime Minister mid week.  Whilst that removed the issue for those that were not willing to serve under Andrea, a key issue still remains. Theresa has said her government is pursuing Brexit, but over half of Conservative MPs campaigned for Remain. Are they happy with the Brexit strategy? Presumably not.

On the Labour side, not much has actually changed, although whether Jeremy Corbyn would be standing, and who would be standing against him, has only become clear at the end of the week. Uncertainty that would have affected if and when Labour MPs would consider moving to a new party.

So I'm waiting to see if there are any other developments towards a new party. But it is worth noting what Toby Helm, co-author of last week's article, has said in today's Observer. As a result of Theresa May appointing a new cabinet and set of junior ministers, she has "exiled to the backbenches a powerful collection of able and still ambitious Tories who will, if she falters, not be shy of seeking revenge." Given the possibility of a new centrist party that would pursue a pro-EU agenda, the ex-ministers do not need to wait for her to falter.  Indeed for those who believe leaving the EU would be bad news, the quicker the Brexit nonsense is stopped the better.


SO WHO COULD LEAD THE NEW PARTY?

The people who have campaigned for Remain and could lead the new centrist party could include (with apologies to anyone omitted):

1) Ex Cabinet Ministers

The following former cabinet ministers are noted Remain supporters, and no longer hold any ministerial post (and therefore have lost their extra salary, if that is significant to them)

George Osborne - former Chancellor
Nicky Morgan - former Education Secretary
Oliver Letwin - former Cabinet Office minister
Stephen Crabb - former Work And Pensions Secretary (although he resigned for personal reasons)
Mark Harper - former Chief Whip

There is also of course David Cameron .  He had always fancied being seen as Tony Blair's successor in terms of running a centrist government.  So he could even be tempted to return to government to complete his ambition with a more appropriate centrist party. Stranger things have happened already in this last three weeks since the referendum result!

2) Current Cabinet Ministers

The following members of Theresa May's cabinet supported Remain and could be tempted to move to a new pro-EU centrist party.  This would be if they would prefer to do so rather than serve in a Brexit government, especially if they would command a higher position:

Philip Hammond - Chancellor (potential PM?)
Amber Rudd - Home Secretary
Michale Fallon - Defence Secretary
Liz Truss - Justice Secretary
Jeremy Hunt - Health Secretary
Justine Greening -  Education Secretary
Karen Bradley - Culture Secretary
Damina Green - Work and Pensions Secretary
Sajid Javid - Communities and Local Government
James Brokenshire - Northern Ireland Secretary
Alun Cairns - Welsh Secretary
David Mundell - Scottish Secretary
Patrick McLoughlin - Party Chairman
David Littington - Leader of Commons
Greg Clark - Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy


3) Senior Centrist Labour MPs

Some weeks ago a list of Labour MPs was published, showing how sympathetic there were to Corbyn's socialist cause.  Assuming this highlights who are more Social Democrat, and therefore eligible for a centrist party, the more senior and well known MPs are:

(a) In the "Hostile Group" (furthest from Corbyn politically)


Caroline Flint
Chris Leslie
Chuka Umunna
Liz Kendal  (former Labour leadership candidate)
Harriet Harman (fomer acting leader)
Jamie Reed
Margaret Hodge
Pat McFadden
Rachel Reeves
Rosie Winterton (Chief Whip)
Sadiq Khan
Simn Danczuk
Stella Creasy
Tristram Hunt
Yvette Cooper (former Labour leadership candidate)

(b) In the "Core Group Negative" (nt sharing Corbyn's socialist views)

Alan Johnson (former Home Secretary)
Dan Jarvis (almost a former leadership candidate)
Ed Miliband (former Labour leader)
Hilary Benn
Keith Vaz
Lyn Brown
Margaret Beckett
Maria Eagle (not Angela Eagle, leadership candidate)
Stephen Kinnock

(c) In the "Neutral Not Hostile" Group (not necessarily sufficiently centrist)

Andy Burnham  (former Labour leadership candidate)
Angela Eagle (current leadership candidate)
Chris Bryant
David Lammy
Heidit Alexander
Paul Flynn (author of "How to Be an MP")
Stephen Timms


 CONCLUSION

There is clearly plenty of leadership and ministerial talent in both the Conservative  and Labour parties who would be eligible and potentially interested in joining a new pro-EU centrist party.

It now remains to be seen who grasps the mettle, and makes the idea a reality!.

If you know any of the people in this blog posting, do bring this to their attention. Thanks.

#EUref – A Call to Centrist Labour MPs

On Wednesday, the new leader of the Conservative Party, Theresa May, became Prime Minister.  Leading a “Brexit is Brexit” government with Brexiteers appointed to the most senior positions facing out to Europe and the world.

“Bremainers” within the Parliamentary Labour Party are in a very awkward position:

• Labour MPs can best fight against Brexit as an effective Opposition, assuming there is no General Election before the Article 50 notification is given
• With Jeremy Corbyn set to continue as leader, at least for a while longer, an effective Opposition isn’t happening
• At the next General Election, a left-leaning Labour Party would not command the votes of the largely centrist public, and many hard-working Labour MPs could lose their seats

Yet consider this.  Theresa May can only continue to govern if she holds a majority in the Commons. It would only take around 10 Conservative MPs to switch to another party for her to lose her majority and, in the absence of any effective coalition, force a General Election.

We already have uncertainty, so this wouldn't make much difference. But after the result it would potentially put a halt to the time and effort being wasted on Brexit, which is only sending the UK backwards:

• Stop the hiatus in the business world.  Investments are being cut left, right and centre.  I heard today of the cancellation of investment in two new warehouses in the UK to cover Europe, due to uncertainty about new cross-border trade barriers, or "non-tariff barriers" as they are known.
• Stop the unnecessary expense and distraction of Brexit preparations, when the Government departments should be concentrating on more positive initiatives
• Stop the unnecessary re-structuring of Whitehall departments like the Foreign Office

A few investment losses like this might be an acceptable sacrifice if Brexit was expected to produce a substantial improvement in economic activity in the short or long term. But I was in the Foreign Affairs Committee meeting last Thursday when Philip Hammond, the then Foreign Secretary now Chancellor, said that he expected to have to choose the least damaging Brexit option when the current assessment is complete. I nearly fell off my chair.

His precise words were "...the mandate to Government was to do that [leave the EU] in a way that minimises the damage to the economy and our prospects for the future." in answer to Q40. "Minimise the damage"?  What sort of government would agree to that?

So a stop to this Brexit nonsense should be sooner rather than later.  Indeed a matter of urgency.  It will be some weeks or months before the assessment of Brexit options is complete, although this is expected to confirm the assessment before the Referendum that all Brexit options are worse than staying in the EU. That delay and uncertainty is too long.

WHAT ABOUT A NEW CENTRIST PARTY FOR BREMAINERS?

As was reported on Sunday, there is talk at ministerial level of forming a centrist pro-EU party from like-minded MPs from both the Labour  and Conservative parties. As it takes some weeks for a party to be registered with the Electoral Commission, interested MPs thought they would have to wait.

But I asked on Tuesday “What If” a party was already registered with the appropriate centrist and pro-EU objectives and constitution?  A core of MPs could make the move now.

The Just Party Logo

Well such a party does exist. Registered as PP2520, “The Just Political Party” is exactly that.  "Just" as in Social Justice and with the registered description "Great Aspirations. Great Britain".  The main hashtag is #JustThinking.  The Just Political Party was registered in 2014 and has not been used to field a candidate, or indeed incur any expenditure other than registration fees.  It is just like a newly registered party, up and ready to go.

The Just Political Party is granting memberships from MPs from any party who can demonstrate their centrist and pro-EU credentials. Conservatives due to the situation above, and from Labour due to their leadership hiatus. The membership fee is nominal.

For MPs, at a personal level, The Just Political Party may well provide better opportunities for their career. This is especially for founder members joining now, including Labour MPs who are unlikely to get into government in 2020 or any earlier General Election. Founder members can also set The Just Political Party's agenda and specific policies from a clean sheet.

If founder members bring along Bremainer colleagues from any party to The Just Political Party, the new Bremainder centrist party could command a substantial presence in the House of Commons, and undoubtedly a substantial public following.

As mentioned above, this would likely prompt a General Election. Many people in the country feel this is only right and proper after a change of Prime Minister mid-term.  In that event The Just Political Party could even form the next Government. That would certainly be the objective.  Stranger things have happened!

There will be a lot of work to do to set up the full party machine at a national and local level. And that will need to be funded.  But plans have already been documented to do so, prepared by a Chartered Accountant.

Ideally The Just Political Party would be balanced left and right in the Commons by being roughly half ex-Labour MPs and half ex-Conservative MPs. Perhaps each Bremainer Labour MP could "buddy up" with a like-minded Conservaative MP.  Maybe not hug a Tory, but certainly link arms to join The Just Political Party together.

I am the catalyst and enabler, but it is down to centrist Bremainer MPs to act.

As a Labour MP:

• Do you believe the UK should remain in  the EU?
• Are you on the right of the Labour party, a social democrat or Blairite who believes in equality of opportunity rather than socialist equality?
• Want to be in Government as soon as possible to implement such policies?

Please get in touch via Twitter @just4charley or link to me via Linkedin http://bit.ly/29DJ8tT as a matter of urgency.  We can meet in Westminster.  Now is the hour.

#EUref - An Eleventh Hour Call to Bremainer MPs in the Conservative Party (Updated)

[v3 updated 15/7/16 after Theresa May's government appointments]

The 11th hour was invented for this moment.

On Wednesday, the new leader of the Conservative Party, Theresa May, became Prime Minister.  Leading a “Brexit is Brexit” government with Brexiteers appointed to the most senior positions facing out to Europe and the world.

“Bremainers” within the Conservative Party have a choice:

• Loyalty to the Conservative Party, or
• What they believe is in the national interest to Remain, and resign the Whip

Theresa May can only continue to govern if she holds a majority in the Commons. It would only take around 10 Conservative MPs to switch to another party for her to lose her majority and, in the absence of any effective coalition, force a General Election.

We already have uncertainty, so this wouldn't make much difference. But after the result it would potentially put a halt to the time and effort being wasted on Brexit, which is only sending the UK backwards:

• Stop the hiatus in the business world.  Investments are being cut left, right and centre.  I heard today of the cancellation of investment in two new warehouses in the UK to cover Europe, due to uncertainty about new cross-border trade barriers, or "non-tariff barriers" as they are known.
• Stop the unnecessary expense and distraction of Brexit preparations, when the Government  departments should be concentrating on more positive initiatives
• Stop the unnecessary re-structuring of Whitehall departments like the Foreign Office

A few investment losses like this might be an acceptable sacrifice if Brexit was expected to produce a substantial improvement in economic activity in the short or long term. But I was in the Foreign Affairs Committee meeting last Thursday when Philip Hammond, the then Foreign Secretary now Chancellor, said that he expected to have to choose the least damaging Brexit option when the current assessment is complete. I nearly fell off my chair.

His precise words were "...the mandate to Government was to do that [leave the EU] in a way that minimises the damage to the economy and our prospects for the future." in answer to Q40. "Minimise the damage"?  What sort of government would agree to that?

So a stop to this Brexit nonsense should be sooner rather than later.  Indeed a matter of urgency.  It will be some weeks or months before the assessment of Brexit options is complete, although this is expected to confirm the assessment before the Referendum that all Brexit options are worse than staying in the EU. That delay and uncertainty is too long.

WHAT ABOUT A NEW CENTRIST PARTY FOR BREMAINERS?

As was reported on Sunday, there is talk at ministerial level of forming a centrist pro-EU party from like-minded MPs from both the Conservative and Labour parties. As it takes some weeks for a party to be registered with the Electoral Commission, interested MPs thought they would have to wait.

But I asked on Tuesday “What If” a party was already registered with the appropriate centrist and pro-EU objectives and constitution?  A core of MPs could make the move now.

The Just Party Logo

Well such a party does exist. Registered as PP2520, “The Just Political Party” is exactly that.  "Just" as in Social Justice and with the registered description "Great Aspirations. Great Britain".  The main hashtag is #JustThinking. It was registered in 2014 and has not been used to field a candidate, or indeed incur any expenditure other than registration fees.  It is just like a newly registered party, up and ready to go.

The Just Political Party is granting memberships from MPs from any party who can demonstrate their centrist and pro-EU credentials. Conservatives due to the situation above, and from Labour due to their leadership hiatus. The membership fee is nominal.

For MPs, at a personal level, The Just Political Party may well provide better opportunities for their career. This is especially for founder members joining now, including ex-Ministers who have just lost their ministerial posts. Founder members can also set The Just Political Party's agenda and specific policies from a clean sheet.

If founder members bring along Bremainer colleagues from any party to The Just Political Party,  the new Bremainder centrist party could command a substantial presence in the House of Commons, and undoubtedly a substantial public following.

As mentioned above, this would likely prompt a General Election. Many people in the country feel this is only right and proper after a change of Prime Minister mid-term.  In that event The Just Political Party could even form the next Government. That would certainly be the objective.  Stranger things have happened!

There will be a lot of work to do to set up the full party machine at a national and local level. And that will need to be funded.  But plans have already been documented to do so, prepared by a Chartered Accountant.


I am the catalyst and enabler, but it is down to centrist Bremainer MPs to act.


 As a Conservative MP:

• Do you believe the UK should remain in  the EU?
• Are you towards the modernising left of the Conservative party, believing in social justice and public services as much as personal liberties, aspiration and a vibrant private sector economy to pay for those services?
• Want to be in Government as soon as possible to implement such policies?

Please get in touch via Twitter @just4charley or link to me via Linkedin http://bit.ly/29DJ8tT as a matter of urgency.  We can meet in Westminster.  Now is the hour.

Post-#EUref - What If There Were To Be A New Centrist Party For Remainers?

On Sunday morning, readers of the Observer saw the headline across pages 12 and 13 saying “Pro-EU Labour and Tory MPS look at chances of forming a new centrist party”.

This idea would be to re-shape British politics.  This was picked up at the end of the Sunday Politics show on BBC, and then in an online posting by Asa Bennett for the Telegraph

So what is this all about?  Who? Where? Why? How? When?

WHAT?

The Observer article by Daniel Boffey and Toby Helm says that a cabinet minister has disclosed that there have been informal discussions between Tory and Labour MPs about forming a new centrist party.  After all, the British public regard themselves as centrist, and it is well known that in a General Election the party that wins the centre wins the election.

Here’s my analysis of data collected by ComRes in late 2014, showing where people think they fit on the left-right spectrum. 0 is far left, 5 centre and 10 far right.  This is clearly centric, with the right shoulder slightly bigger than the left:

The talks are at an early stage, although I hear there may be an announcement later this week.

WHO?

The talks involve MPs from both Conservative and Labour parties. This is at the highest level, including Cabinet Ministers and their shadows. The Observer’s source says “talks should be taken seriously”.

Who precisely is still a mystery, but my mission to discover, given what they could gain from a conversation with me.

WHERE?

Discussions are said to taking place in the infamous Parliament tea rooms, which sadly are ordinarily off-limits to the general public.

Nonetheless it is possible to meet MPs as they pass through public areas.

WHY?

On the Labour side, it’s primarily MPs wanting a chance of being elected to Government at the next General Election.  This is given that Jeremy Corbyn does not see that as a priority, and many believe it will not happen if he is still leader at that time. There is a good chance that he will then still be leader, given that he is refusing to resign, and the Labour membership may well elect him again – provided he is actually allowed to stand, over which there are legal arguments.

On the Conservative side, on Sunday there was a fear that the party would find itself in a similar position to Labour, with membership generally supporting Andrea Leadsom but some 20 MPs reported as threatening to resign if she became leader. Andrea has now stepped down, and to that extent that problem has disappeared.  As a former constituent, I’m sure Theresa May will make a very good PM.

But a fundamental problem remains. Theresa May confirmed yesterday, Monday, that “Brexit means Brexit”.  Substantially more Conservative MPs backed Remain than Leave. So what are the Remainers to do?

What the EU referendum did was bring together MPs around a common belief in remaining in the EU. The majority were MPs from the Labour and  Conservatives parties.  What they found was that “there is an opportunity to build on the newly founded relationships between centrist MPs in both parties” with a common wish to remain in  the EU.

HOW?

It should be recognised that any major party is a coalition of different views, across a spectrum for each issue. However the two main parties can be simplified to each having two major factions:

• For Labour it is (a) the Socialist left (Corbynistas) who believe in equality, and (b) the centrist Social Democrats who believe in equality of opportunity
• For Conservatives it is Remain or Leave the EU.  That broadly matches the centrist and right wings of the party. But a notable exception is  Michael Gove being more of a centrist but believing in Leave.

There has been talk of both parties splitting on these lines. The question is to do what?  How could the Centrist Remainers get re-elected?

• For Social Democrats, one option is to join the Liberal Democrats, formed from a merger with Labour MPs who split off from the Labour party last time there was a hiatus.
• But more likely would be to form a new party formed from MPs from Labour and Conservatives.  In sufficient numbers, they could even form a Government!

This is how the main parties could split and re-form.  Other parties have been excluded for simplicity, but UKIP in particular should not be forgotten given they are still scoring around 15% share of support currently in polls.

The result is that the public would have a choice of two centric parties, the LibDems and the New Party, as well as the leftish rump of Labour and rightish rump of Conservatives who would keep their party and branding.

WHEN?

The question first is “If”.  I asked Michael Howard yesterday, and his view was that it wouldn’t happen. But I’m not so sure.  There are strong pressures for it to happen:

1. Remainers feel that they were robbed of victory and that leaving would not be in the country's best interests They have not stopped battling to Remain.  One way is to formally combine in a new party, at least for the centrists
2. The result would be a far more sensible political landscape for the majority of voters. I for one am fed up having to choose in a General Election principally between the Labour and Conservative parties that still have the more extreme left and right elements and policies. I’d far prefer a choice of two properly centrist parties. I’m sure many other people would too

So when? A week is a long time in politics, and hey what two long weeks we have just had!

A key issue is that it typically takes around 6 weeks to register a new party with the Electoral Commission.  What if there is a party recently registered that has centrist objectives and constitution, believing in:

• Personal aspiration and creating jobs
• Social justice for people who need help
• Strong management of the UK’s finances
• And of course support for Remain?

Could enough MPs choose to join that new party to be a credible force in Parliament? Even form a Government at some stage?

Who would lead it?  There are plenty of good strong candidates on both the Conservative and Labour sides who might see themselves as Prime Minister if they can muster sufficient support.


I ask "What if?". And then offer this suggestion for a new party

• From a Conservative viewpoint.
• From a Labour viewpoint

Post-EUref - We’ve had the Phoney Debate, now for the Real Thing

I spent Wednesday and Thursday last week in Westminster, attending debates and talking to as many Ministers, shadow ministers and other MPs  as I could.  On Friday I attended a business forum where the dominant topic was Brexit.  Today Monday 11th I am just off to Westminster again.

This is in the wake today of Andrea Leadsom pulling out of the Tory leadership race to allow Theresa May to become PM, and Angela Eagle declaring she is challenging Jeremy Clorbyn for Labour leader.  Fascinating and exciting times. But we do need to get the country back onto an even keel as soon as possible!


WHY DID PEOPLE VOTE LEAVE IN THE REFERENDUM?

I live in a constituency where the Conservative MP is a Leaver but a few hundred yards (or metres!) from one where the Conservative MP is a Remainer.  Yet the vast majority of people I have asked have voted to Remain, especially educated youngsters who say all their friends on Facebook have said they would vote Remain.

Many are upset and angry that the result was Leave. Especially with dirty tricks such as the bus with £350m a week for the NHS emblazoned across it, proven an absolute lie.

Conversely those people that have told me they voted Leave are few and as follows:

• An elderly neighbour who said “I just sent with the flow. Immigration I suppose”
• A taxi driver who couldn’t decide, but being the son of a holy man, looked for divine guidance. He and four of his family voted Leave as a result.  Five votes for Leave.
• A second-hand car salesman and his wife who “liked Farage”. Funny thing was they were just off on holiday to Europe, and the exchange rate was going to make it more expensive. There was more than a hint of regret.
• A London cabbie who was concerned about immigration.  But he was now more worried about talk of jobs moving from the City to Europe, and the resulting decline in taxi business.
• A TV cameraman who was going to vote Remain, but at the last moment voted Leave “to give Juncker a kicking” (presumably thinking the overall result would still be Remain)

A very small sample, but hardly a ringing endorsement to Leave.

I haven’t had chance to speak to people outside the Home Counties. Many of the English regions voted Leave despite the potential loss of squillions of EU money.  I suspect in many cases it was concern about immigrants taking their own individual job, and them seemingly being given priority for social housing.

The government now desperately needs feedback on what really lay behind individual Leave votes before interpreting the Referendum result as actually a request to leave the EU. 


THE MOOD IN WESTMINSTER (LAST WEEK)

I attended the Lords EUref debate last Wednesday. The general mood was that the people had spoken.

The referendum may technically have been ‘advisory’, but politically it couldn’t be ignored. The people wanted to Leave, at least in how they voted, and several Remainers accepted that as a democratic decision

Talk in the House of Commons was similar, reflecting the Cabinet’s decision to accept that the UK should now Leave.

But there was another voice.  A voice saying that Leaving would be economically disastrous, for the short term if not the longer term. A voice that said that the debate prior to 23rd June had been dire and phoney. A voice saying that those who still believed Remain was right for Britain should fight to stop the Government pressing the Article 50 button to Leave.

A voice saying the real debate had now started. People could see what the impact of Brexit would be. No longer #ProjectFear but #ProjectReality.:

• More expensive foreign holidays and imports such as food
• Sales contracts and investments being cancelled,
• Jobs being lost to mainland Europe 
• Jobs being lost through cancellation of contracts or investment
• The threat of tax rises to make up for lost taxes.  I still wouldn't rule out an emregency Brexit budget beign needed
• But conversely easier to export with the lower exchange rate, so not all bad news.

Indeed there was a debate on Thursday in the Lords about the possibility of a second referendum, despite the Government saying that will not happen.  There is now a legal challenge, and a second referendum is a distinct possibility.


THE NEW CONSERVATIVE LEADER AND HER BREXIT OPTIONS

Until today we had two remaining candidates, though Andrea Leadsom has now pulled out:

• Andrea Leadsom – a committed Brexiteer
• Theresa May – the MP of a neighbouring constituency to me.  Those people I know who know her well still aren’t clear of her true beliefs on Brexit. But she is prepared to publicly support Leave, at least for now.

The Government is now committed to assessing each Leave option, notably but not restricted to:

• Leaving the Single Market under World Trade Organisation rules, which is by no means ideal economically, or
• Keeping in the Single Market under EFTA rules, which is likely to mean no dilution to Free Movement of People. This would therefore provide no solution to people’s immigration concerns.

In practice this assessment is taking the analysis published by the Government a few weeks ago in its leaflet, where the conclusion was Remain, and updating it. The conclusion is likely to be:

• Remain is still the best economic option
• One of the Brexit options will be “least worst”.

Philip Hammond the Foreign Secretary said last Thursday that in actioning the will of the people to Leave, it is now the Government’s objective to choose the Leave option that will create "least damage".  Ridiculous, but that's the position the Government now finds itself in!

It will be interesting to see how much worse the best Brexit option is, in short, medium and long term. And then the reaction of Theresa May to that assessment.

I have heard it said that for Brexit, “Angela will but Theresa may”.   That is about right. If the assessment‘s conclusion is it would be far worse to Leave than Remain, Theresa is more likely to accept that conclusion.  Angela's reaction is now irrelevant.

As I write I am waiting for confirmation that Theresa will formally take over from David Cameron as Tory leader Prime Minister as soon as Wednesday evening. That measn Thursday is the earliest the A50 button can be pressed, but I am sure Theresa will want more time.


NOW FOR THE REAL DEBATE

It also means there is now a short period after Theresa becomes PM in which there needs to be a proper debate on the pros and cons of Remain and each of the leading Brexit options.

There is then the question of the role of the Commons and Lords in these debates. It has been argued that the Prime Minister of the day has the legal authority under "Royal prerogative" to press the Article 50 exit button, such that any Commons/Lords debates would only be advisory.

But it has also been argued that the UK went into the EU under an Act of Parliament, and therefore can only leave if that is rescinded by another Act. This would require votes of MPs and Lords under normal parliamentary process.  There are already three legal challenges to insist on a new Act, but the outcomes are unclear.

The legal position needs to be resolved, and quickly.  But either way there will be debates in the Commons and Lords over the coming weeks, and there will be votes.

Prior to 23rd June this was the declared Remain/Leave picture of MPs by party. [picture] A clear preference to Remain. By the time Theresa May become Tory leaer this will have changed:

• Remainers like Theresa May who have accepted the Leave result and would presumably vote Leave if there was a vote today
• People changing their minds to/from Remain as a result of further debate and economic experience

I would like to think that there will still be a clear majority to Remain.  But that requires work within Westminster and beyond.



CROSS-PARTY FORUM TO FIGHT FOR "REMAIN"

The StrongerIn campaign brought together Bremainers from all parties (except UKIP presumably). 

I was going to suggest a cross-party forum for Remain MPs with the objectives to:
•    Convince the general public that in the light of additional economic experience and assessment, Remain is far preferable to Leave

• Seek a second referendum if that would put an end to any ongoing uncertainty over the UK’s Brexit position
• Convince as many MPs as possible to vote Remain in any debate

But over the weekend it was disclosed in the Guardian (and printed in Sunday's Observer) that Labour and Conservative MPS who had campaigned together for Remain had increasingly come to regard themselves as “a tribe”. There is talk of a new centrist party at the highest level amongst Bremainer MPs.


EFFECT ON THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY

Which brings me on to my meeting of business people on Friday, which involved Chartered Accountants in business, from Centrica to smaller independent businesses. The Chairman said “We are where we are, to Leave, and we now need to get on and do business.”

My view as set out above is that Leaving is not a ‘When’ but an ‘If’.  But yes, business has to carry on and make the best of it.  Budgeting, forecasting and decision-making just got a whole lot more interesting. The sooner this can all be resolved, the better!


CONCLUSION

The key to the UK’s way forward is the Government’s official assessment of the Remain and Brexit options, and then MP’s reaction to it.   To that extent we need to sit back and wait.

However the original assessment was a strong recommendation to Remain.  If anything the economic experience since the referendum makes that recommendation likely to be stronger.  I believe it is now incumbent on Remainer MPs to unite to fight to Remain.  A cross-party group needs to be formed.
This may result in forming a new party, so the Guardian suggests.  Watch this space!

Post #EUref - The Legal Whys and Wherefores of Brexit and Leadership Elections

[v4 updated 1700 Thursday 14/7/16 after Theresa May made PM and NEC decision on Labour leadership race]

For any official political move to be valid, such as leaving the EU or electing a new leader, the move has to comply with relevant laws, rules and regulations.  Otherwise the move can be challenged in the Courts.

You would have thought that moves like Brexit and electing a new Labour leader would have been clarified well in advance, but that isn't the case. Furthermore, the legal challenges have already started, so in future time and effort will only be spent on valid moves.

This blog article reports on what's happening from a layman's perspective, and will be updated as relevant matters progress.

Follow @davidallengreen on Twitter for the latest developments, who I must thank for alerting me to some key matters included below.

(1) HOW WOULD THE UK LEAVE THE EU?

The principle means by which the UK can leave the EU is by invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty ("A50") which explicitly covers a Member State leaving. (There is apparently an alternative approach that uses more general international law, but as nobody in Government has mentioned it, I will park that option for now.)

A50 provides for a two-year negotiation of the terms of exit after notification has been given to the EU.  That period can only be extended by agreement of all the other 27 Member States, so extension is not guaranteed. There is the risk that one or more Member States would force the UK to finally leave the EU before any replacement trade deal is in place.  Think about that for a minute!

When to submit the A50 notification (or "press the A50 button") is therefore critical.  One key question is who has the authority in the UK to submit that notification?

The Government has indicated that the Prime Minister has that authority, under what's called the "Royal Prerogative".  So we have been led to believe that the new Tory leader, who will also become Prime Minister, will be able to decide if and when to press the A50 button.  Inevitably this is also a political choice, so whoever becomes PM would be looking for support for their decision.  The two leadership candidates are currently taking the Referendum result as sufficient support

But this is not necessarily correct:

• Some people say the Referendum result is only advisory and not binding on the Government, especially as the campaigning was deeply flawed,  However many senior politicians are saying the decision should be respected, including members of the Cabinet and senior individuals in other parties such as Tim Fallon, Leader of the LibDem, and Remainers in the Lords (as I heard in  the Lords debate on Wednesday)
• Some people are arguing that as it was an Act of Parliament that took the UK into the precursor of the EU, only an Act of Parliament can bring the UK out.  That means going through normal Parliamentary processes, including  getting a majority of MPs in support of pressing the A50 button. A distinct majority of MPs sided with Remain before the referendum, including the vast majority of Labour MPs. So it is by no means guaranteed that MPs would vote to press the A50 button.
• Specifically there are already at least three legal challenges that an Act of Parliament would be required:
• "The Dos Santos claim" in the Courts
  
• "The Mishcon de Reya claim"
  
• Crowdfunding to sponsor Lindmans asking the UK Government to clarify that A50 will only take place when authorised through primary legislation.i.e. Act of Parliament

David Allen Green, a former Government lawyer himself, offered these thoughts on the first two legal claims and made these comments on Twitter late Friday afternoon 8th July after the third was made public @davidallengreen :

"An important thing here is not so much the prospect of any court hearing but the government's defence. That is the thing to watch.

The government's lawyers will need to do a formal response to the claims.  The government's lawyers will want to defend not only this claim but also protect the scope of the royal prerogative generally.  The last thing government lawyers will want is a firm judgment limiting the scope of the royal prerogative. It is far too useful.

So expect the government to respond offering a bit of a fudge - this was also hinted at by Letwin earlier this week.  The government may say there will be a parliamentary vote (on EC legislation) before any A50 notification.  If the government is convincing on this, the court may say the claim will be moot and the claim will not go any further.

The government really will *not* want this point litigated if it can avoided.  it does not want to risk an adverse judgment.  So keep watching these cases: the government may be forced in to declaring its hand on how A50 will be decided, so to head off a case.
 
Fwiw - I believe A50(1) decision can be made under prerogative or by statute. Either/or. Other pundits differ. Nobody is certain."

Indeed!

(2) WHO CAN NEGOTIATE EXIT TERMS ON BEHALF OF THE EU,  WHEN?

It is obviously sensible for the UK to only press the A50 button when it is clear what the key terms of Brexit would be.  Ideally this means getting a "Heads of Agreement" prior to pressing the A50 button, and thrashing out the detail in the subsequent two years.  Pragmatically, this is probably the only way to comply with the 2-year limit.

However the EU has indicated it will not enter into any discussions prior to receiving the A50 notification.  This puts the UK in a difficult and weak position, as the EU could easily impose a very bad deal for the UK that the UK would have little choice but to accept to meet the 2-year deadline.

A key issue that needs swift resolution is the rights of EU citizens living in the UK to continue to do so, and similarly for UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU.  I was in the Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday 7th July when Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, was being grilled by Brexiteer Tories on the Committee about various Brexit matters.  Philip echoed Theresa May in being adamant that the UK should not guarantee rights for EU citizens here before equivalent rights had been granted to UK nationals.  But he was happy to put on record that guaranteeing both sets of rights is the Government's objective.

Initially Philip was saying there was not much he could do until the A50 button was pressed.  Then he said that he is attending a dinner on Sunday 17th July with his 27 opposite numbers. He would use that event to hopefully get agreement on this particular issue.  After all, the EU is fundamentally a collaboration between its Members States, and such ministerial meetings do have clout within the EU.

That opens up the possibility of equivalent meetings on other key issues.  In practice then, key aspects of Brexit CAN be negotiated before the A50 button is pressed.


(3) WILL THE UK STILL PLAY A PART IN EU INITIATIVES?

In the days after the EU Referendum result, there seemed to be  EU meetings taking place with the 27 other countries, excluding the UK.   This may simply have been a mistake by the EU and/or the British Government.

Philip Hammond advised on Thurday 7th that the Government is adamant that the UK will continue to play its part until such time as the UK actually leaves the EU, likely into 2019 at least. However:

• The UK is set to take on the Presidency of the Council of the EU for the period July-December 2017. The Government is thinking about whether it would still be appropriate to take up that position if the A50 button has been or will be pressed, taking into account the views of other Member States
• The UK's Commissioner had resigned, and his replacement is yet to be announced.  It is still the Government's intention to appoint a new Commissioner as soon as possible

(4) WILL THERE BE A SECOND REFERENDUM?

The Government have announced that it will not hold a second referendum, as has been echoed by other senior politicians. The first is deemed adequate.  But is this right?

• Some people are saying that the referendum result to Leave the EU did not provide support for the specific form of Brexit, for example whether the UK remains within the Single Market or not.  The British people should in principle be asked to vote on the final proposal in a second referendum. However, if that is to be done before the A50 notification, then the vote would only be on the Government's vision, not necessarily what it had agreed with the EU (though see the point above about possibility of pre-discussions with other Member States)
• Some legal experts are saying a second referendum on the relations between the UK and the EU is almost certainly required under the European Union Act 2011
• There is sufficient doubt for the Lords to have held a debate on Thursday 7th July on holding a second referendum 
• Peter Catterall a constitutional expert at University of Westminster, has said "The probability is the government will want to do a second referendum and they will want to make it clearer." 

(5) CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP ELECTION AND POSSIBLE GENERAL ELECTION

All these legal aspects will constrain whatever the Conservatives leadership candidates can actually deliver. This would have especially applied to Angela Leadsom who has been keen to press the A50 button as soon as possible.

But Angela has just pulled out. Maybe in part because she knows she cannot deliver what she has been promising.

Which laves us with Theresa May as the new Prime Minister, but not appointed through a General Election.  Is one now needed? Morally perhaps. But legally not and it is also dfficult. Under the Fixed Term Parliament Act there are only two ways. But there is also the possibility of her losing a majority and therefroe having to go to the country.  This will all require further consideration.


(6) LABOUR LEADERSHIP ELECTION

Angela Eagle and Owen Smith are challenging Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of the Labour party.  Jeremy Corbyn wishes to continue as Leader, given his wide support from party members, and is prepared to stand himself.  The question is whether he can stand automatically or need to get 50 odd nominations from Labour MPs like any other candidate. 

Labour's National Executive Committee have decided that Jeremy can stand without the required support of MPs. But there is already a legal challenge to that forom a major party donor.  Let's wait and see.
IN CONCLUSION

We are in unprecedented and indeed exciting times.  The legal foundations of our Parliament and parties will set the parameters within which solutions will need to be actioned, principally:

1. It is not clear who has authority to press the A50 button, but is looking like it will need an Act of Parliament
2. It is looking like a second referendum will/should be required
3. The deciions to allow Jeremy Corbyn to stand for Labour leader is subject to legal challenge.

#EUref - Lessons from the Lords Debate 6 July

The House of Lords debated the EU referendum and its consequences over a two day period. I was lucky to have attended the last couple of hours last night, up until the mace was carried out of the chamber.  I was by then the only member of the general public there.

I have four main observations from what I heard:

(1) VALUE OF THE LORDS

Whatever your views on the existence of the Lords and those who serve in it, it was very clear that there is enormous value in having a forum of the "old sages" (who they are in the main) to challenge the government.

(2) COMPLEXITY OF BREXIT

Divorcing from the EU will be enormously difficult. Issues include:

• The Northern Ireland border with Eire
• Keeping Scotland within the Union
• Maintaining grant applications for EU funds, to continue to get some of our money back
• Replacing enormous sums of EU money that go to parts of the UK with UK money
• Handling the economic issues, such as the sharp drop in value of the pound
• Unravelling the swathes of laws and reulations that entangle the UK into the EU 

Personally I think this is an enormous waste of time, and a massive cash and opportunity cost we shouldn't be bearing.  Part of the reason I voted Remain, despite being eurosceptic.

(3) AUTHORITY OF REFERENDUM

The dominant mood, even amongst Remainers, was that the people had spoken definitively on 23rd June. This is despite enormous doubt about the conduct of the pre-23rd debate, such as the continued prominence of the £350m a week Leave claim after being proved an utter lie. Chances to have set a higher result threshold than 50% had not been taken when the legilation setting up the referendum had been debated.

However several people spoke about taking time to think, and potentially go back to the electorate with a second referendum. It would appear that the Article 50 "exit button" would not need a vote in the Commons, although this is open to legal challenge. The Prime Pinister apparently holds sufficient authority.

The referendum was "advisory" but politically far more than that. Nonetheless the government would be foolish to blindly march into Brexit without careful consideration of the consequences, especially economic.

(4) WHAT DID A LEAVE VOTE MEAN?

There's also the matter of what the Lave vote actually meant, at an individual voter level, given the close 52:48 result.  No doubt there will be much research and analysis, but the initial impression is there were three main issues:

(a) Sovereignty - "We want our country back" struck a real chord with many voters.

(b) Immigration - It is clear there is a real concern about the high levels of immigration, especially when competitingfor jobs, housing and public services. There's a resentment that foreigners are apparently being prioritised

(c) Prospects - For those who have not reaped the rewards of economic growth, but the sorrows of austerity, this was in part a protest vote. Maybe they thought things would be better out of the EU, and  could hardly get any worse. (But oh yes they can get worse, as is already beign played out!)

Amazingly the areas that most benefit from EU funds appeared to be most against remaining in the EU.  Whether that is lack of voter understanding, I don't know:

So what was behind that protest?  Evidence suggests there is a sense that individual voters haven't been listened to. A disconnect betwen Westminster MPs and real people living real lives. Perception  rather than reality perhaps. But perception is reality to them. As a result, UKIP has risen in working class areas as much as for the right wing where it started, given that it is adresing people's concerns.

Turnout for the referendum was far higher than recent general elections.  People are prepared to be engaged with politics, but have been disillusioned with what has been offered at those general elections.

People are fed up with the old political order. They want something new. A party that speaks for them, that represents them.

Post #EUref - 10 Days On

On Sunday I bought all the papers. It’s now Wednesday, The Chilcot report is about to be presented. But where are we on the EU Referendum and its fall-out?

It’s still worth a quick look at the Sundays.

The Sunday Sport had the right idea.  Virtually ignore the referendum and concentrate on what it knows best – boobs.

The other Sundays stuck to bollocks, as that is the only word for what is happening in UK politics and the economy at the moment. (Though a different word will be required for prime time TV!). Specifically:

THE QUEEN

The Sunday Express headline was “QUEEN IN PLEA FOR CALM”.  Absolutely. It’s time to think.

LABOUR LEADERSHIP

The Sunday Mirror ran an article written by Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party titled “I’ll reach out to those MPs who oppose me” in which he says:

• “The need to respect democracy also goes for the Labour party”

• “I was elected .. by 60 % of Labour members”

• “Those who want to challenge my leadership are free to do so in a democratic contest in which I will be a candidate”

It was clear then as it still is now, that Jeremy intends to cling on.  Meetings with MPs and unions have not changed that yet.

The Labour party is about to split. There are even artlces online about how the assets would be split. Who owns the Labour name? The HQ lease? Split imminen!.

CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP

On Sunday there were 5 leadership candidates for the leadership fo the Conservative party. We’re now down to 3:

• Theresa May – former Bremainer now with a Brexit ticket
• Andrea Leadsom – prominent Brexiteer
• Michael Gove – prominent Brecxiteer

So what about all those Tory MPs who campaigned for Bremain? Significantly more in number than campaigned for Brexit.  Finding themsleves in a party led by a Brexiteer and a party membership strongly of that ilk too.

What will the Bremain MPs do?  It looks like the Tory party will finally split over Europe.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Watch this space!