47

As far as I understand, Theresa May was elected to the leader of the Conservatives (and consequently Prime Minister of the UK) to make a Brexit deal (source):

She [May] said there was a "big job" ahead to unite the party and the country following the referendum, to "negotiate the best possible deal as we leave the EU" and to "make Britain work for everyone".

She added: "I am the only candidate capable of delivering these three things as prime minister[...]"

She worked for two years on a deal that the Parliament eventually rejected, so she failed her main(?) task. Yet, the next day the very same Parliament gave her confidence that she should continue governing (and achieve a Brexit deal). How do MPs explain that on Tuesday they reject her deal, but on Wednesday they trust her to continue to get an acceptable deal (which she failed to do in two years, according to the vote the previous day)?

Community
  • 1
user2414208
  • 726
  • 1
  • 5
  • 10
  • 32
    "So she failed her main(?) task." You're right to put the question mark in. Her main task is being the Prime Minister, Brexit gets a lot of headlines but it's by no means her main responsibility. – JeffUK Jan 17 '19 at 13:43
  • 1
    @JeffUK In the source I quoted she seemed to outline her job. I guess she did unite her party (at least for the no confidence vote), but I as far as I understand, she did not unite the country, the UK seems to be quite divided. "make Britain work for everyone" sounds really vague, I don't know how she stands with it. Her deal was rejected. So at most she achieved half of what she set out to do. – user2414208 Jan 17 '19 at 13:49
  • 2
    My impression is that the PM sees this is a stumbling block, so her work is not yet complete. So, she carries on. – Steve Melnikoff Jan 17 '19 at 13:56
  • 8
    Nobody wants the job. Including Corbyn. Nobody can deliver Brexit. – Richard Jan 18 '19 at 00:11
  • @user2414208 You're being extremely harsh on this poor Theresa May. She has to face extreme oposition by both hard-brexiters and pro-EU people who both wants to ruin her deal. It's not her fault. – Bregalad Jan 18 '19 at 09:36
  • 9
    @Bregalad Despite her claims, she done nothing but inflame the divisions. She painted herself into a corner with her arbitrary red-lines, ruling out softer options e.g. "Norway+" that might have been a reasonable compromise given the narrow result. She ignored and insulted the 48% calling them citizens of nowhere and staying silent when the right-wing press calls them sabateurs and traitors. She has refused to meet representatives of the 3 million EU27 citizens in UK and of UK ex-pats whose lives are turned upside-down. Sorry. No sympathy at all. – padd13ear Jan 18 '19 at 11:40
  • @padd13ear - The people she called "citizens of nowhere" were the, in her words, "people in positions of power" who she claims "identify with the global elite." The line about people who "believe you are a citizen of the world" directly followed that, and thus was clearly referring to that group, not random Britons who supported Brexit. In fact, that term was so clearly not describing the rank and file of the UK that some of her heaviest criticism for that language came from people who viewed it as reminiscent of anti-Semitic dog whistles. – Obie 2.0 Jan 18 '19 at 15:05
  • Sorry, I meant to say "who opposed Brexit." – Obie 2.0 Jan 18 '19 at 15:17
  • @Obie2.0 The meaning of the sentence "If you believe you're a citizen of the world you're a citizen of nowhere" is quite unambiguous. It refers to anyone who considers themselves a citizen of the world. Its meaning is not affected or altered by any other sentences that may occur previously or subsequently. – padd13ear Jan 20 '19 at 13:34
  • @padd13ear - It is insofar as May is stating which people she believes see themselves as citizens of the world. You seem to think everyone who voted Stay sees themselves that way...May's comments, unpleasant as they are, seem aimed at a narrower group. – Obie 2.0 Jan 20 '19 at 19:08

6 Answers6

49

That is because there is a likelihood that the opposition party will gain power should the government be defeated in the confidence vote.

According to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, the government has 14 days to try to form a new government or an early election will have to be called. The new government formed will also be subjected to a confidence vote.

The Act specifies that early elections can be held only:

[ ... ]

if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days.

The Conservative Party is currently in power on a "confidence and supply" arrangement with the Democratic Unionist Party.

It would be difficult for the Conservative Party to find another party to form a "confidence and supply" arrangement. After the 2017 general elections, the Liberal Democrats expressed skepticism on forming a government with the Conservative Party, the Scottish National Party is opposed to the Conservative Party while the Sinn Féin has an abstentionist policy. These are the three parties with enough seats to prop up the government.

After the damage inflicted on the Liberal Democrats by their coalition deal with the Conservatives in 2010-15, the centrist party ruled out any reprise. There was also no chance of a Conservative deal with the Scottish National Party (SNP), which won 35 seats but which is resolutely opposed to the Tories on both constitutional and economic questions. It appears that no one has even contemplated a grand coalition between Labour and the Conservatives, an arrangement that works in Germany but which is alien to the UK other than in wartime.

Source: The Conservation: Can a minority Conservative government survive? Let’s look at the maths

It's also worth noting that it is rare for a party's own MPs to vote against their government in a confidence motion.

Most governments are defeated after the "confidence and supply" party (in the current case, the DUP) votes against it. However, the DUP is opposed to a Corbyn government so they continue to prop up the incumbent Conservative Party government.

Not surprisingly, MPs voted entirely along party lines on the confidence motion:

Image

If no new government could be formed, an early election must be held in which the Labour Party is currently in good shape to win.

As such, either way, the opposition Labour Party will likely gain power should the incumbent Conservative Party be defeated in the confidence vote.

Community
  • 1
Panda
  • 46,580
  • 9
  • 179
  • 239
  • 13
    Great answer. Besides the fear of Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister, a factor that is rarely brought up is what might happen to a Conservative MP who votes against their own party (or abstains). It can be speculated that they would be expelled from the party, which besides any personal and professional turmoil that would cause, would make it hard for them to be re-elected at the next election, as they would have to stand as an independent, or possibly for another party. – Steve Melnikoff Jan 17 '19 at 12:57
  • 8
    worth pointing out that if Corbyn had thought he'd win the motion he probably wouldn't have tabled it... –  Jan 17 '19 at 13:11
  • I understand the motivation ("I want to stay in power!"), but it's not something an MP could tell her/his voters. What is they could tell? – user2414208 Jan 17 '19 at 13:42
  • 4
    @user2414208: if a majority of the voters in an MP's constituency want the current government to remain in power (or failing that, don't want a Labour government), then voting to achieve that - and giving voters this reason - is a sensible course of action. Obviously it keeps the MP in power too (insofar as individual MPs have much power), but this can be painted as being about the bigger picture. – Steve Melnikoff Jan 17 '19 at 13:52
  • @user2414208 It’s possible to argue that the voters has elected them and thus given them a mandate to stay in power for five years. Also, the British voters are probably tired of elections/ referendum held in the past few years. – Panda Jan 17 '19 at 13:54
  • @Orangesandlemons: he was under intense pressure to hold the VoNC - and the PM increased it when she said that she's make time for it if the SNP requested it (and Labour didn't). He'd been threatening it for ages, so really had no choice - even if the result was all but certain. – Steve Melnikoff Jan 17 '19 at 13:54
  • @user2414208 that a general election right through the brexit period may be a very bad idea, even worse than this most incompetent of governments. –  Jan 17 '19 at 13:55
  • 2
    I think this hits the crux of the matter but maybe doesn't state it clearly enough. The asker doesn't seem clear that this vote was about the Conservative government not Theresa May. As you said it would be unlikely for any Conservate to vote for this (against themselves) and they already had a leadership contest to get rid of May which failed. The only way this motion was going to pass was if the DUP voted for it and they don't want a Labour government and have already received substantial inducements for their votes. This all puts May in a farcical position but that's brexit for you. – Eric Nolan Jan 17 '19 at 14:13
  • 1
    @Orangesandlemons That makes no sense whatsoever. Clearly, it is strongly in Corbyns and Labours interest to carry out its conference pledge and do whatever it can to get an early general election. – gerrit Jan 17 '19 at 14:14
  • 1
    @gerrit which comment? If it's the first, to put it very simply, Corbyn doesn't want to own the mess, hence his refusal to propose a NCM previously, even trying to make a NCM on May only, to avoid triggering an election. –  Jan 17 '19 at 14:18
  • 27
    @gerrit Corbyn would be a fool to want to become PM right now. He would much prefer to be PM in April, and be able to blame absolutely anything on "the Tory Brexit" – Caleth Jan 17 '19 at 14:22
  • 7
    @Caleth Unless you believe the Labour Party when they say they want to avoid the damage a no-deal Brexit would do to the country, which would be possible if Labour takes over (like they've said they wanted many, many times) and extends Article 50 (Juncker has said that if red lines are dropped, which they would if government changes, the Withdrawal Agreement can be changed). I find it entirely believable that this is indeed Labours preferred option, as laid out explicitly at Party Conference. – gerrit Jan 17 '19 at 14:29
  • 1
    Corbyn's motion of no confidence was just political theatre. Actually forcing an election would be a disaster for him, because he would actually have to find some policies from somewhere - including a policy on Brexit, where he has never actually committed himself to being either for or against it, and his electoral supporters are just as divided as the conservatives are. – alephzero Jan 17 '19 at 16:44
  • @alephzero: I'm not sure. Politics is a game of misdirection. Corbyn might well decide to run against May and her deal instead of for anything in particular. That would probably be wiser than trying to come up with a plan, because May has become a lightning rod for Brexit discontent on all sides. – Kevin Jan 17 '19 at 17:47
  • "in good shape to win." Are opinion polls even that useful? Sometimes they're very wrong... – Pharap Jan 19 '19 at 02:12
17

Because, I think, no one wants to be the Prime Minister place during Brexit. Just imagine the number of problems coming - with borders, economy, and the bank sector especially. For now, responsibility for all Brexit-coming problems will lie on the May's government. On the next elections, May's government will be associated with all Brexit stuff, not the new-elected.

MPs don't like May's Brexit deal. But they also don't want to take responsibility for the consequences, by substituting May's government themselves.

Panda
  • 46,580
  • 9
  • 179
  • 239
user2501323
  • 11,825
  • 4
  • 44
  • 91
  • 2
    No one in politics ever wants to be the one to bell the cat. – Jared Smith Jan 17 '19 at 13:48
  • 4
    "no one want to be on Prime-Minister": that's not true; Corbyn has said repeatedly that he wants the job. – Steve Melnikoff Jan 17 '19 at 13:55
  • 28
    @SteveMelnikoff yeah, he says that. What he really wants is to be PM after everything has gone haywire, so he can say 'not on my watch'. Which, to be fair, is fairly sensible. –  Jan 17 '19 at 13:56
  • @Orangesandlemons What he really wants is to be PM after everything has gone haywire, source? – gerrit Jan 17 '19 at 14:16
  • 6
    @gerrit Sorry, I'm sadly unable to quote JC's internal motivations, but his careful avoidance of calling for a NCM earlier and various ways he's dodged calling it suggest that he's in no hurry to force a GE right now. Which makes sense - if May brexits then all the negatives can be blamed on her. –  Jan 17 '19 at 14:20
  • 1
    @Orangesandlemons Ok, I see your reasoning now, we can't look into peoples true motivations so it's just speculation. I do believe Labour wants to do whatever it takes to avoid a no-deal Brexit (they just said this should be off the table before they want to talk to the PM), including taking over the government (they've said this many, many times), which if it happens now would of course require an extension to article 50. But if you believe it's all lies and theatre, then your reasoning is indeed consistent with that belief. – gerrit Jan 17 '19 at 14:26
  • "Labour wants to do whatever it takes to avoid a no-deal Brexit (they just said this should be off the table before they want to talk to the PM" Indeed they've just said. "They've said this many, many times" but they've obviously avoided acting, notably a while ago when tabling a NCM in May only, whilst refusing to do so until now in the Government (the one that would lead to anything). I've noted that the actions have been strangely distant from the talk - in fact the only active measure to try to stop no-deal was the Grieves (a Tory) amendment to prevent the clock winding down... –  Jan 17 '19 at 14:36
  • 6
    @Orangesandlemons There would have been no point in calling for a NCM earlier. In fact, there was no point in calling for one now (see result), and he might not have bothered if May hadn't said that SNP, LibDems, and Greens could table one instead. – Martin Bonner supports Monica Jan 17 '19 at 15:24
  • @MartinBonner there may have been no point, but he did call for a NCM in May alone, for which there was even less point. That speaks volumes. –  Jan 17 '19 at 15:33
  • In fact, one can argue that Corbyn's intentional loss of a no confidence motion was designed to keep May in her post. Without it, there was the possibility (however remote) that she might have resigned. Winning a no confidence vote eliminates that scenario in the short term. – alephzero Jan 17 '19 at 16:48
  • @Orangesandlemons "I've noted that the actions have been strangely distant from the talk " - In terms of rational and consistent political behaviour, Corbyn is in the same league as Trump IMO. – alephzero Jan 17 '19 at 16:51
  • I guess Boris would do it if people would vote for him. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Jan 17 '19 at 21:16
  • @gerrit you have to understand that 'labour' is not one person, and many labour MPs hold different views on brexit as well as on JC and his leadership. Indeed some backbench labour MPs face the prospect of deselection, i.e. another candidate will take their place in the next election. – JJJ Jan 17 '19 at 22:32
  • @JJJ When I say "Labour", I am referring to the viewpoint adopted by consensus at the party Conference. Of course there are individual MPs who are going against the party programme (Corbyn used to rebel a lot), and backbench MPs who are indeed so far at odds with the party members that the party members would like a different MP / parliamentary candidate, not unlike Ocasio-Cortez winning a Democratic primary in the US. – gerrit Jan 17 '19 at 22:56
  • A big difference between current anti-Corbyn Labour rebels is, of course, that when Corbyn rebelled he was always strongly supported by his local party members, whereas the Blairites rebelling against Corbyn are often overwhelmingly losing the confidence of their own party members. The major exception to this is indeed Brexit, where Corbyn is at odds with the party, and finding himself having to defend a policy adopted at Conference that he doesn't wholeheartedly believe in, but that happens in democracy. – gerrit Jan 17 '19 at 22:59
  • @gerrit here on the mainland (at least in my circles) Corbyn is seen as a more extreme voice in the labour party. He compares to Bernie Sanders when some Blairite might compare to Obama (well, maybe not as charismatic). As we all know, the more extreme candidate may do well in their own circles, but a moderate can win the whole country. – JJJ Jan 17 '19 at 23:07
  • @JJJ They said that before the last General Election, then he rose from 25% to 40% in the polls. In some continental countries (Netherlands, France) social-democrats are lucky to even reach 10% with centrist leaders. I think many continentals also underestimate how deep the societal damage is of decades of Tory and Blairite policies, how severe the generational divide, how deep the housing crisis, NHS crisis, infrastructure crisis. There is a reason why a leftist candidate like Corbyn succeeds here. – gerrit Jan 18 '19 at 00:14
  • @JJJ I've lived in Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Canada, and the United Kingdom, and my political sympathies lie with the left (such as Corbyn/Mélenchon/Socialistische Partij/Die Linke/Vänsterpartiet/NDP/Sanders/Varoufakis). FPTP contributes to the popularity of Labour, but so does the entirely different perspective. UK is the only OECD country where real wages in the past 10 years have shrunk even though the economy is growing, only Greece is doing worse. No wonder Corbyn is overwhelmingly popular among young Brits and the Labour Party is now by far Western Europes largest party altogether! – gerrit Jan 18 '19 at 00:18
  • @gerrit I get that, and there doesn't seem to be a more centrist alternative either (mostly because of FPTP). As for Labour being a large party, that's also because membership was made very cheap and conservatives bought in to elect Corbyn. – JJJ Jan 18 '19 at 00:29
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – gerrit Jan 18 '19 at 00:46
  • @Orangesandlemons "What he really wants is to be PM after everything has gone haywire, so he can say 'not on my watch'." - then why doesn't the conservative party call this bluff and actually prescribe a new election? So that they can say "hey look labour also can't fix it, now get back to our party" in a year or two? – paul23 Jan 19 '19 at 16:58
  • @paul23 they've already called a GE early. They also cant force labour to win. And the chaos of a GE right now would be a disaster. Its not something they could do both practically and politically –  Jan 19 '19 at 20:14
8

As far as I understand, Theresa May was elected to the leader of the Conservatives (and consequently Prime Minister of the UK) to make a Brexit deal

No, she was elected leader of the Conservatives (and consequently Prime Minister of the UK) to lead the Conservatives (and consequently the country). Making a Brexit deal is surely the most important part of those jobs at the moment so it is still somewhat surprising that she is still in them. However, your premise suggests a direct connection between the Brexit deal and her election, which simply does not exist.

David Richerby
  • 2,583
  • 15
  • 22
  • 2
    Funny side note: those who expressed no confidence in her as Tory leader in December, expressed confidence in her as head of government in January. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Jan 17 '19 at 21:21
  • 1
    @Trilarion Well, they are different things. If the no confidence vote had carried in the full House, there was no guarantee that the Conservatives would remain in control, especially if no government could form in time and a general election was held (as Labour seems likely to come out ahead right now in one of those). The in-party vote had far less risk to the party itself beyond the public optics. – zibadawa timmy Jan 18 '19 at 09:28
  • @zibadawatimmy You're right. It's not the same. Confidence motions are about more than just confidence. But on the surface it looks like confidence can come and go easily these days. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Jan 18 '19 at 10:26
  • Well, that's politics for you. It's not really a straight question "do you have confidence in ?" in a vacuum; those answering the question also take the possible consequences into account and choose the answer that they think will have the best outcome, at the time of writing. Just as everybody does when voting for a thing or making a decision about a thing. This is really just the beginning of all the ways in which "dealing with people" is complicated. – Lightness Races in Orbit Jan 18 '19 at 11:35
  • It's not really up to parliament to oust her, it's up to the Tory's themselves in a spill. That's obviously not happened yet but it could soon if the remainers or no-dealers get enough support in the party (unlikely). Except she's immune from a spill. So there's really no chance of her being replaced. – Stephen Mar 29 '19 at 01:18
6

How do MPs explain that on Tuesday they reject her deal, but on Wednesday they trust her to continue to get an acceptable deal (which she failed to do in two years, according to the vote the previous day)?

Exactly this. They trust her to come up with a different deal (not all of them expect the same changes though, some may even hope for a no-deal Brexit). And why not? It's their decision. Many criticize only a single part (the backstop). There is still some time.

At some point this might become somewhat ridiculous. If no new idea with a majority in Parliament and consent of the EU emerges, they will either have to accept her deal or reject her and do something else like a General Election, another referendum or a no-deal Brexit.

NoDataDumpNoContribution
  • 9,607
  • 2
  • 31
  • 59
  • 6
    It's already ridiculous, it took 2.5 years to get here. The meaningful vote was pushed back a month during which time absolutely nothing changed. The idea that May cancome up with something new at this point seems laughable. She has already ruled out every other option. – Jontia Jan 17 '19 at 17:59
  • 1
    @Jontia Then maybe MPs will eventually see her wisdom and finally agree with her.. or do something else. There is still time to oust her if needed. Problem is that there is no majority in Parliament for anything currently. But there might be a majority for something soon. So far, MPs keep all their options open. Brexit could even still be canceled, at least theoretically. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Jan 17 '19 at 21:15
2

The UK's problem is that the majority in parliament doesn't want to leave with May's deals, doesn't want to leave without a deal, knows they have no chance to get a better deal (unless May sends Boris Johnson to negotiate, he will show them...), doesn't want to not leave, doesn't want to ask for an extension of Article 50, doesn't want another referendum, and for all these reasons is completely stuck.

On the other hand, the UK doesn't want to give Labour any chance to get new elections and take over power.

So whatever May would have suggested, it would have been rejected. And they all know that. And while all the Tories are happy to attack her, they know that they need her.

gnasher729
  • 4,877
  • 16
  • 28
0

Theresa May had already survived a pre-Christmas rebellion in the Conservative Party, when an attempt was made to pass a vote of no confidence in her leadership, an attempt to trigger a leadership election. But the attempt failed. Under Party rules, no further attempt can be made for 12 months. Therefore she is immune from being replaced as Party Leader now.

Since the only issue on which her MPs are agreed is their desire to keep Corbyn out of Downing Street, her Party will not vote for an early Election. They voted for one 18 months ago, and lost it, putting them back into a minority government again, so are more cautious now. Expecting them to vote to give Corbyn another chance to take power away from them is like expecting a Turkey to vote for Christmas.

Her survival thus has nothing to do with Brexit. For 12 months, she is immune to being replaced as Leader of her party, so she can lose, lose and lose again in votes in the Commons; she knows that on a Confidence vote her MPs will not vote for an Election, because they prefer her to Corbyn.

Ed999
  • 212
  • 1
  • 7