,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This is an important point: Stewart's Plan A is the policy that has repeatedly been rejected by Parliament. However: I think he's right that the dynamic could change - and not just because he's a more persuasive advocate than May. [Short thread]
(1) By winning the leadership, Stewart would have faced down the No Deal tendency in his own party - something May never dared to attempt - & beaten it among the membership. That would change the dynamic significantly and cut out the ERG's powerbase.
(2) He would have won an explicit mandate for the Deal from the party membership. Conservative MPs could still rebel against it if they chose, but they could no longer claim to be championing the party against its leadership. That raises the threshold for rebellion.
(3) Unlike Theresa May, Stewart would have ruled out from the start any possibility of leaving with No Deal. And he would have a mandate from the membership to do so. That would change the calculus for the ERG, when thinking about what might happen if they voted down the Deal.
Of course, these are all reasons why Stewart is unlikely to win: he's seeking a mandate that the membership don't (currently) want to give. But if he did pull it off, he'd be in a stronger position than May because he'd have been honest with his party about the choices.
