Uk politics

Taking the temperature in Westminster today, it appears that Theresa May doesn’t have much more of a chance of winning the meaningful vote than she did when she pulled it before Christmas. The mood has improved a bit for her deal, but by nowhere near enough for her to pass it. Indeed, interestingly the full bore Brexiteers appear to be embracing ‘no deal’ more firmly than before. Boris Johnson’s Daily Telegraph column today is striking for the willingness with which it embraces no deal, rather than just arguing for a pivot to Canada. I understand that the Government expects the EU’s pre-vote help to come towards the end of this week.

Theresa May doesn’t yet have anything concrete to offer MPs who have concerns about her Brexit deal. On Marr this morning, May repeatedly talked about how she was seeking ‘assurances’ on the backstop. But she clearly hasn’t got them yet. Interestingly, May indicated that the assurances she’s looking for are around a start date for the new relationship; rather than a time limit or clearer exit mechanism. This would mean that the backstop would not be ‘indefinite’ as there’d be a start date for the future trade relationship. However, this approach immediately raises two questions. First, would the future relationship apply to the whole of the UK or just Great Britain?

The Prime Minister does have a strategy to prevent what she sees as the chaos of a no-deal Brexit. The flaw in it is that the strategy probably has a shelf life of just over one week. Because her strategy is to persuade MPs to back her version of leaving the EU in a vote on 15 or 16 January, and in the words of one of her senior ministers: “I will be shot for telling you this but we are going to lose that vote”. So what then? Well, amazingly, no one around her – not her ministers, not her officials – seem to know. Why not? “She won’t tell us” says a minister. “We go to see her. We give her our ideas about what to do next. She listens politely. She even asks questions. But none of us have a clue whether she agrees, whether she is persuaded.

Jeremy Corbyn has a message for the people of Milton Keynes: I condemn you. The Labour leader delivered his criticism at an event in 2011 after voters in the town booted out pro-Palestinian Labour MP Phyllis Starkey. He told the audience: ‘I condemn the people of Milton Keynes for the mistakes that they made in the May election but they will have a chance for (sic) correct their mistakes hopefully in the very near future.’ https://twitter.com/TheGolem_/status/1080886732701253633?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Unfortunately at the two general elections since Corbyn made his comments, the people of Milton Keynes failed to learn their lesson by twice electing two Tory MPs.

Jeremy Corbyn has come under pressure this week to back a second referendum after a YouGov poll found that seven in ten Labour members wish for it to be party policy. So far, Corbyn has resisted such calls for a so-called People's Vote. In this week's Spectator, I explain why the Labour leader is reluctant to go near one – at least for the time being. With the Tories in turmoil over Brexit, it’s quite possible — some cabinet members believe probable — that the government may soon collapse with a new general election called. This is Labour's great hope – and Corbyn hopes to trigger a snap poll by defeating the government in a confidence motion after the meaningful vote.

Westminster conversation about Brexit often suffers a time lag. MPs frequently speak with surprise about things that actually happened months ago and which are regarded as old, established facts in Brussels and policy wonk-world. The backstop is the best example: outlined in the December 2017 Joint Report of the UK and EU negotiators, its meaning and necessity still came as a novelty to some MPs – resigning cabinet ministers included – in June; and to others in November. (The 2017 election result is another instance: it took many Tory MPs at least a year to realise it meant there could be no Commons majority for the hardest form of Brexit; some still haven’t worked that out.

Dame Helena Morrissey has been described as the UK's own superwoman thanks to the fact that she balances a high-flying City career as a financier with bringing up nine children. She's also a rarity in the finance sector as a proud Brexiteer. So, I'm delighted to have Helena as my guest on the latest episode of Women with Balls. In the interview, Morrissey talks about what it is like being a lone voice on Brexit in her industry: 'I, maybe naively, had taken the logical extension of the work I'd done on encouraging diversity in the boardroom to mean that diversity of thought on issues like the EU referendum was to be welcomed. It became very shouty very quickly and very confrontational the whole run up to the referendum and then subsequently.

We’re closing 2018 by republishing our ten most-read articles of the year. Here’s No. 2: Steerpike on the many problems with May's Brexit deal: Theresa May's government has teetered on the point of collapse over her proposed Brexit deal. The withdrawal agreement between the UK and Brussels led to Dominic Raab and Esther McVey resigning in protest. However, May's remaining ministers have since attempted to rally around her at least in the short term. Speaking on Friday, Liam Fox – the International Trade Secretary – gave a speech in which he declared 'a deal is better than no deal'. This is rather different to May's old claim that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'. So, is Fox right? Mr S thought it best to let readers decide for themselves.

When the tide goes out, you see who’s swimming naked. So says Warren Buffett, the folksy billionaire investor, explaining that tough times expose which firms have poor management. The same is true of politics, and especially Brexit. 2018 was the year the tide went out on Brexit, and we saw too many of our politicians' failings exposed in all their shrivelled glory. The tide was, like all tides, predictable. As we neared the end of the two year Article 50 period, the outline of a potential exit deal had to emerge, and that deal would show that, contrary to fantasy, the EU holds the better hand of cards in this game. Any agreement to leave the EU was always going to involve compromises, decisions to accept something less than what you hoped for.