And so the last Tory Brexiteer leader implodes…

She’ll be making a statement shortly, but it looks like the pressure from the press has been too much for Andrea Leadsom. There are now no serious pro Leave candidates in the field to fill the shoes of David Cameron. Funny that.

Anyone suggesting that this whole Brexit process will be smooth and cost free, is likely gilding another fading lily.

Adds: Pound has hit a three hour high.



  • Msiegnaro

    The real loser today will be Theresa May who is effectively a lame duck even before becoming leader.

  • chrisjones2

    I suspect the Men in Grey Suits have brokered an arrangement.

    Angela knew she could never win and the contest would have left a divided party – caused more by the hangers on fighting for their candidate (and hoped preferment) than the candidates themselves. That has been avoided

    May needs to build a united party. This is the first stage. Expect Angela to be offered a big job alongside Gove and perhaps even Boris. Theresa to take over this month. New Cabinet reshuffled before recess to give time to read in over summer and before conference season

  • On the fence!

    Of-course the other thing they’ve done, as a party, is utterly bury Labour.

    Nails in the coffin, coffin in the ground, hole filled with concrete!

    RIP “The Labour Party”.

  • On the fence!

    I disagree. Mrs Leadsom’s speech was big on unity, maybe (unlike Labour) the most of them actually are smart enough to see the big picture.

    I was initially quite vexed on hearing the “breaking news”, but I’m now prepared to sit back and see how it pans out. You have to admit that the issue dragging on until September was never going to benefit any of us in any way.

    Dare I suggest signs of the party in power getting it’s act together and acting responsibly?

  • Obelisk

    I would like to disagree with you because I do not like the Conservative party.

    But I can’t.

    Labour is a carnival show unfit for power.

    Labour also has intense structural problems that were not caused by Corbyn. Corbyn, as I have said, is a symptom of those problems rather than a solution.

    Will they do better with Eagle rather Corbyn in power? Maybe…although the divisions caused by ousting Corbyn could split the party and at minimum will do real harm to it internally.

  • Obelisk

    With the Conservative leadership race now over, May should installed as Prime Minister as fast as possible. Once she is, then she has to tackle the truly awesome decision of when to trigger Article 50.

    Triggering Article 50 is the equivalent of injecting the British economy and British state with a dose of poison, and then seeing how it reacts.

    For Brexiters, what won’t kill them might make the whole stronger.

    For Remainers, it will cause catastrophic and irreversible damage to everything they hold dear.

    Either way, what comes out on the other end will not be the same as what we have now.

    My personal prediction is Britain will come out weaker, less imposing and a limb or two may have to be amputated.

  • hgreen

    Lothesome sorry Leadsom was never a credible leader. The skeletons were already falling out of the cupboard without anyone even having to look for them.

  • hgreen

    Yea right. What’s the membership count standing at today?

  • hgreen

    Bomber Eagle has no chance of the leadership. With or without Corbyn in the race.

  • Obelisk

    Membership count is irrelevant. The only true standing a party has is in it’s capacity to win power via elections, and then to wield that power to achieve it’s goals.

    The only tally that matters in the end is the number of MPs in the House of Commons.

  • hgreen

    Acting in self interest not responsibly.

  • Obelisk

    I agree with that also. Corbyn will not be Prime Minister. Angela Eagle will not be Prime Minister. Labour needs someone with vision to rearticulate a progressive vision for the UK.

    They can’t even articulate one for themselves.

  • hgreen

    The comment stated RIP the Labour Party. Any party with 500k+ members and growing strongly can hardly be viewed as being on deaths door.

    If it was only the number of MPs that mattered then Corbyn would be out on his ear by now.

  • On the fence!

    No idea, nor do I care.

    But it’d be kinda odd if there wasn’t a good wheen of them wondering why they bothered!

  • Obelisk

    Why not? If they can’t win an election then what good are they?

    There could be five hundred thousand members or there could be a million, but as long as those members push views that are outside the center ground, as long those views are personified by a incompetent more interested in spouting slogans and waving placards than actually WINNING, then a party’s membership tally is a footnote.

    Only with enough MPs can the Labour party make actual change. If all those members can’t elect a Labour majority, then waving that number around does nothing.

  • On the fence!

    Such bitterness directed at someone who you don’t actually know anything about says much more about you than it does about them!

  • hgreen

    And just what are these views that are unacceptable? Labour had loads of MPs under Blair and brown and inequality still rocketed.

  • Obelisk

    Some ideas of Corbyn are popular. But the Corbyn package is not.

    The Eagle package is not.

    Labour needs a new broom.

  • hgreen

    And what are they? Where is the evidence?

  • Obelisk

    The ‘Corbyn package’ was put before voters at the recent council elections.

    In the face of a Tory government pursuing austerity he barely moved the needle.

    That was an electoral test. That is the only evidence required.

  • hgreen

    The local govt elections were hardly a disaster considering the lack of unity in the party and certainly not the disaster predicted. There have also been bye elections and mayoral elections which resulted in huge wins for Labour though it seems that Corbyn is not allowed to take credit for these.

    Again you haven’t referred to specific policies instead referring vaguely to the “package”.

  • The Conservatives won in 2015 by having thousands of volunteers surveying every voter in 80 marginal constituencies, then direct mailing to them the messages that they were interested in.

    Policies, manifesto and media make no difference these days to who wins. It all comes down to massive, data-driven, direct marketing.

    If anyone thinks policies makes some electable or unelectable, it just shows up how much they are disconnected from the actual party campaigners and election strategists.

  • Obelisk

    Off the top of my head, cancelling Trident but keeping the submarines designed to house them because jobs in certain Labour constituencies are dependent on them.

    How could anyone take him seriously after that? He should have had the courage of his convictions and simply said we are going to cancel Trident.

    Instead he single handedly came up with a position nobody had thought of that managed to exasperate all sides and make him look ridiculous.

    For the record, I support cancelling Trident and it’s submarines. Waste of money and effort just to puff up the British Military’s ego.

  • hgreen

    Well we are currently building aircraft carriers with no aircraft. He proposed the submarines with no nukes as an option for consideration. Wasn’t policy.

  • Obelisk

    Close enough to leave an impression of a man who has no idea how to lead.

    Also the carriers without aircraft isn’t exactly the same thing as I believe they plan to build the aircraft at a future point, although it is still a ridiculous proposition.

  • Katyusha

    I’m sure senior figures in the British Military would like to scrap Trident also. It’s a ludicrously expensive relic which provides no strategic benefit in the modern theatre of combat. The money would be better utilised elsewhere. The only thing Trident does is place the UK on the front line of a future Russia/US confrontation. It does nothing for Britain.

    For better or worse, Parliament exerts complete political control over the military in the UK, and Trident is electorally popular for certain wings of the establishment; so the military get saddled with a very expensive piece of tokenism.

    Removing the nuclear missiles is actually not a bad idea; or at least replacing them with conventional warheads which might plausibly be used in a developing conflict. Carrying nuclear weapons all the time just ties up resources that could be employed elsewhere if the submarines were dual-use. Nobody expects a nuclear war to start tomorrow.

    However the Astute class already fulfills the requirements for an advanced submarine with non-nuclear missiles. Successor looks like it was essentially going to be a modified Astute, which they are continuing to build, so it looks like we’re going to be building more submarines either way. No job losses at Barrow-in-Furness.

    The money earmarked for the Successor submarines could also be spent on building a full complement of Daring-class destroyers, and modifying the existing ones so they can actually sail in the Middle East. But this would mean repositioning the Royal Navy as a pragmatic naval power rather than a prop for the dress-up-costume the UK wears when it wishes to pretend it is a Great Power once again.

  • grumpy oul man

    This is as good a time as any for Labour to sort out the stress that has building up in the party since the soft right took command.
    The left in general and the Labour traditional have been increasingly marginalized by Tony and his fellow travelers.
    What the result will be I don’t know, a center left party might emerge separate from a labour party with socialist principals.
    Its has a bit of time to get the bloodletting over with as the Tories try to sort the whole mess that we are now in.
    Already we see the Brexiters have all done runners, none willing or wanted in the aftermath of their “win” the new Tory leader is pro Europe as is the Tory party in general.
    UKIP will have a hard job regaining the small percentage of votes it got at the last general election, Nigel,s bad mannered exercise at the EU just offer the referendum and his retirement to be alone with his Salary has damaged the whole credibility of the party.

    For a while both the Tories and Labour will have many problems, the difference is that Labours problems will be internal to labour but the Tories will effect us all and they will have a hard Job blaming anybody else for the crap that is a coming.
    As i said a good tome to have a problem is when your enemy has a bigger one.

  • jporter

    Much as I hate to admit it, the Tories have played a blinder. From Brexit shambles to embarrassing leave campaigners ejected, the party no doubt now uniting behind a new female leader promising to implement Brexit, but with no leave campaign baggage herself, all in a couple of weeks.
    Meanwhile the media shifts back to the feckless, clueless, will-they-or-won’t-they Labour coup which lurches on, looking to subvert party democracy and replace their ‘unelectable’ party leader with someone who looks even more unelectable, and the Tories stride off into the sunset, negotiating Brexit with zero effective opposition.
    Labour have been played like a fiddle. A PR disaster……

  • Anglo-Irish

    Have to agree with that, Labour apparently have a death wish.

    Appointing a man who managed to have a political career of over thirty years and reach the age of 65, yet remain anonymous to the general public was bad enough, add in the fact that he was mainly known within his own party for voting against it over 580 times and you really have to wonder what kind of eejits were involved in the selection process.

    They would have been better giving the job to Dennis Skinner, at least most of us have heard of him.

    Then they come up with the brilliant strategy of allowing people to join the party and vote for a few quid.

    God knows how many Conservatives and Ukippers joined up just to add more petrol to the flames of the self immolation.

    Whilst I don’t support any particular party I firmly believe that a strong opposition is essential to good governance.

    The Labour party is a shambles.

  • hgreen

    Easy to play a blinder when you stand for nothing and your only objective is power.

    Let’s see how it goes. They still have to trigger article 50.

  • hgreen

    500k members paying 3 quid a month. An additional £1m a month coming into party coffers. As they say that kinda money can open a lot of legs.

    The tories thought they could cut the union funding that has underpinned labour for years. Now look what’s happened.

  • jporter

    “Easy to play a blinder when you stand for nothing and your only objective is power.”

    Well that’s true, but that’s what Labour are up against, and need to be better. It would have been easy to play it very differently and at least land a heavy blow on the Tories in the process – they could have either united behind the (admittedly not-ideal) leader, or had the coup earlier, or quicker, with a decent candidate, through the proper channels.
    Anything would have been more effective than the drawn out farce we’ve witnessed up to now.
    I think there’s quite a few people who like Corbyn’s change of direction, but would prefer to see someone else, a bigger character, taking it to the electorate.
    Too late now.

  • Anglo-Irish

    The main difference between the Tory’s and Labour is that the Tory’s are ruthless in their pursuit of power.

    They understand cold hard fact, you can have all the well meaning aspirations in the world, but if you don’t have power it’s just pie in the sky.

    As I said, I don’t have any affiliation to any party and am probably liberal – with a small l – if anything.

    But a person should really only have room for one hopeless cause in their life, and mine is the Blades.

    The Labour party need to stop chasing windmills and understand that socialism/communism is a dead duck, it’s proven a failure on every occasion it’s gained power.

    Capitalism works because it appeals to human nature.

    Capitalism however has caused enormous problems by allowing it’s Achilles heel to be exposed, uncontrolled and unregulated greed has caused enormous grief and it may not be finished with it’s destructive impact yet.

    An organized and well led Labour party promising social fairness by well regulated capitalism but at the same time accepting that entrepreneurship should be encouraged and supported might win the day.

    The thing that kept capitalism in check was that too much greed was punished by failure and bankruptcy.

    Bailing out the banks, and allowing them to pay bonuses for failure out of public money destroyed the system.

    There is a huge opportunity for Labour to gain support for a fairer society in the lessons of recent history.

    Instead of which they have apparently decided to tear themselves apart, appoint unelectable non team playing odd balls as leaders and generally hand it to the Conservatives on a plate.

  • OneNI

    Did you think the UK shoul have joined the Euro too?

  • Gopher

    Its about managing events really. Inside three weeks the Government has a new prime minister, Italy is teetering on the brink of a catastrophic banking collapse and Aleppo which contains 300,000 potential refugees is on the verge of being surrounded. Article 50 is now nothing more than a technicality. Soon people will look back on the vote and the readjustment “as a man caught in the blast of a hurricane will look back to the gentle zephyrs of last summer”. The underlying reasons why people voted for exit have not changed nor have they suddenly vanished whilst the Government found a new prime minister. Time, compound interest or Russian air support does not stand still. Im not sure their effects will be managed quite as well as the British “Establishment” did in bringing governance back after three weeks

  • hgreen

    Article 50 sets the 2 year clock ticking. Haven’t our european friends said no negotiations until it is triggered? Seems like more than a technicality to me.

    I’d argue that the reasons have changed already. 350m for the NHS, umm errr, immigration will be significantly reduced, well ummm.

  • hgreen

    Where did the current labour leader say he was looking to smash capitalism? Socialism and communism are not the same.

  • Gopher

    Again its a technicality, our friends in Europe say a lot of things and many say a lot of different things. As I have pointed out the banking crisis and Immigration have not changed except in their increased capacity to destabilize. The channel and the vote remain constant. The fundamentals are still there, now it is up to the sovereign government. If it fails they it will be voted out of office at the next election. Now it is just a case “What Theresa did next”

  • Anglo-Irish

    I don’t recall the current Labour ‘leader’ saying bugger all, aside from wanting to get rid of Trident – which I agree with – but he wants to keep the nuclear submarines because it would upset the unions to scrap them, which is pretty ridiculous in my opinion.

    I’m perfectly well aware that socialism and communism aren’t the same which is why they have two separate descriptions.

    They are however two doctrines that many Labour supporters adhere to.

    Communism is a discredited nonsense, ‘ soft focus ‘ socialism which accepts capitalism as an unfortunate necessity may work but whatever direction a political party takes it requires strong leadership to make it acceptable to the electorate.

    Labour are leaderless and falling apart at present and that is to the detriment of the country.

  • Jeffrey Peel

    And now Theresa has put Brexiters into all the top positions in government. Funny that.

  • DOUG

    To be fair, UKIP’s recent influence would seem to give lie to that