Oooft - brutal Qs from the BBC to Boris Johnson in Ukraine!
Asked if he has done enough to save his premiership after 'partygate' and how foreign leaders can take British diplomacy seriously as he prioritised talking to MPs over Putin... https://twitter.com/LizzyBuchan/status/1488568358962401289
Totally irresponsible question from the BBC.
Ask at home maybe but not in Ukraine when Ukraine is desperately welcoming the support from the UK PM against Putin. All the BBC have done by that question is strengthen Putin
Well simply stop supporting the one man responsible for all this nonsense in the first place. If he could either apologise or even just tell the truth occasionally it would not be an issue.
Your support for him weakens the West militarily. The West is weakened from the divisive autocratic nationalism you love and strengthened by the liberal democracy you seek to destroy.
Utter rubbish.
The Ukrainian Parliament today saw Ukrainian MPs wave the Nato, UK, US, Turkish, Canadian, Danish and Polish flags as all have given support against Putin. Notably absent were the EU, German and French flags as none of them have given any real support to Ukraine.
It is now diehard Remainers like you who are Putin's best friends by default as you desperately try and undermine Boris
Do you have any basic decency? Morality? Standards?
Take a look in the mirror at yourself. You are defending *that*. Every day that you do so, ever more desperate you are to deflect and deny, the more pitiful it becomes.
You can ignore my perspective because you have no interest in it or me - thats fine, I have zero interest in how people who I don't respect consider me either. But we now have long-standing Tory stalwarts calling it what it is. They have decency. You should try and find some before it is too late.
He is supposed to be a Christian
Yes. One who has not read the Gospels as he preaches "christian" morality in direct conflict with His teachings as set out in things like Luke 15:3.
Its a bit like American "christians" who have a Bible that consists entirely of Genesis, Leviticus and Revelation.
Oh dear, does that mean HYUFD has to call for Johnson's resignation?
One can always hope
Each conservative announcing they have submitted their letter to the 1922 gives me a lift and just hope it becomes an avalanche
It's more like a trickle at the moment however.
It is the direction of travel and I expect more after tomorrow's pmqs
Your avalanche analogy is right.
I forget who it was who said, about bankruptcy, that it "happens very gradually, then very suddenly".
My reading is that is what is happening here. It will at times look very lacking in momentum, and people will say it is petering out. Then, very suddenly, he'll be gone.
I don't agree, I doubt there will be a VONC any time soon.
It’s time to look at my maxim on management decision making, based on 20 years of project management experience. “Management will always decide not to make a decision if that remains an option, especially if the point by which a decision should have been made has already passed”. For management read Tory MPs. So the real question is, when does not making a decision cease to be an option? I suggest after the May local elections next year. That would leave 12-18 months for a successor to turn things round. Until then there is always an excuse to wait, after that Johnson stays.
For 54 letters to call for him to go before then would require something even worse to happen than heretofore (and it’s hard to see what that could be if Johnson’s performance isn’t already deemed unacceptable), or one of the potential candidates to succeed him to break ranks and force the issue (also unlikely).
The 'worse' is happening every day and his interview in Kiev was a car crash, not for what he said but the caustic questions from journalists, and this is going to deteriorate every day including tomorrow's pmqs, especially if he uses Savile v Starmer
Indeed, I now think he will be very fortunate to survive the week
He will indeed be very fortunate. I know you have already decided, but my point is that if as a Tory MP you haven't already made your mind up, I can't see anything dramatic enough happening to override your instinct (like my management) to 'wait and see'. The constant drip, drip, drip hasn't been enough so far, why will that change for more than a handful of MPs?
PMQs tomorrow, Humble Address, more embarrassing pressers, bad polls, couplemore MPs going public. That's how drip drip drips work.
PMQs = Rayner v Raab do we think?
That will be interesting.
In presentational politics, big picture generally beats master of the detail (behind the scenes, often the opposite). Which is why Starmer often struggles against the clown. But Rayner is big picture and Raab is the lawyer; Rayner should be short odds on coming out ahead.
I expect it to be Boris v Starmer and pure theatre
Boris is home this evening
Via the duty free
Cakes.
Watching him in Kiev his weight seems to have ballooned and he looks as scruffy as ever
Ambushed by Chicken Kiev?
Isn't it now Kyiv, but pronounced Kiev?
Ukrainians would pronounce it "Kyiv"!
Cf. Kharkiv versus Kharkov, Lviv versus Lvov.
In recent years I've happened to come to know quite a few Ukranians. Nice people. Ukrainian people - but that's up to them and them only.
The strangest one is the port of Mykolayiv, which used to be Nikolayev. "M" substituted for "N".
I've read the two pieces you linked to earlier. Here's my response.
"the chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. We saw none of that on January 6th"
But that's exactly what happened! The US President is the commander in chief. By attempting to stay in that role unconstitutionally, he was trying to stay in control of the military.
"The man has no attention span, no interest in planning or strategy, and most importantly, no ability to maintain relationships with the type of people who do have those qualities (like Steve Bannon). Even if he wanted to overturn “democracy itself” — I don’t believe he does, but let’s say — Trump has proven over and over he lacks the qualities a politician would need to make that happen."
Well, so what? That's just describing why he failed. He tried a coup but was distracted by shark films and Twitter. Great, but that doesn't mean he didn't try to do a coup!
As for the Greenwald piece, it's largely about the subsequent fear of repeats. The bit that deals with the attempted coup is sensible: "The key point to emphasize here is that threats and dangers are not binary: they either exist or they are fully illusory. They reside on a spectrum. To insist that they be discussed rationally, soberly and truthfully is not to deny the existence of the threat itself. One can demand a rational and fact-based understanding of the magnitude of the threat revealed by the January 6 riot [sic] without denying that there is any danger at all." but comes down on the wrong side of the fence. What matters is not the LEVEL of violence involved, but the aims of the perpetrators and the constitutionality of their actions. Certainly there have been successful coups that were even less violent than this attempt, and this one resulted in hundreds of injuries and five short-term deaths (possibly several more in the medium term, counting suicides of law enforcement).
I'm afraid it's far from good enough to say it wasn't violent enough to be a coup attempt. It was violent, and it was a coup attempt. These things don't have to be linked, but the fact that they coincide makes it a contortionist's exercise to try to make the case for it not being an attempted coup. It looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, so it's a duck.
First of all, kudos to you for reading the pieces. And also for going through the points. There was another one of Greenwald's that was more relevant but I couldn't find it so I posted that one as it had the main points.
Talibi's point (and he says that he doesn't believe Trump wanted to overturn democracy, which is what I think) is not that it wasn't violent enough but that it was clear - from Trump's actions before, during and after - that he was not planning a coup. He was totally irresponsible and stoked up the crowd (although there are question marks now being asked about who did what exactly) but that is not a coup.
Put it another way, if Jeremy Corbyn whipped up a crowd to say that the 2019 GE was stolen from him, and to march on Parliament, and that crowd then entered Parliament looking for MPs and the Lords, would you say JC was organising a coup or not?
Yes, I probably would. It's tricky because there's no direct comparison with the EC certification process in the UK, so if this had been at another time I would be tempted to "merely" call it an act of terror. But the rally and the invasion of the Capitol were timed to be exactly when the last legal nicety was happening to seal Biden's victory. That is NOT a coincidence and it is why this episode deserves to be called an attempted coup. It's not about counting bodies, it's about what the purpose of unleashing the crowd was.
As for intent, you can tell from Trump's public statements that he regarded (wrongly) the election as having been stolen from him and these statements were attempts to legitimise exactly this kind of action.
This was a coup attempt, there is zero doubt.
And the calculated pitch rolling - to declare a loss as a win - from months out.
And the thing is, he fixated on the wrong thing. He'd have had a stronger case claiming that the unprecedented four-year media campaign against him and/or Zuckerberg's millions made the election not free and/or fair rather than the insane claims that the ballot count didn't match the ballots cast.
I seem to recall he moaned a lot about that too. With rather less justification than similar from Jeremy Corbyn.
What Corbyn got didn't even compare.
Correct. It was far worse.
Wow. I think you actually believe that.
I perhaps need to explain better what I mean about Trump and the media. You will then understand, I think.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
They'd have said the latter, like the SNP. But no serious country can allow itself to be put at risk from continuous constitutional uncertainty. So, like the SNP, they should rightly be told to take a running jump.
Really? If UKIP had won the 2017 General Election, they should have been prevented from enacting a second referendum?
I don't agree.
If they'd won a General Election on that manifesto then fair enough.
The problem in 2017-19 is that the parties seeking to have a second referendum lost the 2017 election handsomely. Less than 10% of MPs elected in 2017 were done so on a pledge of holding a second referendum.
Grieve, Starmer, Woolaston and the rest who tried to subvert democracy (not the Lib Dems to be fair) were all elected on a platform of saying the 2016 referendum was decisive and that Brexit would happen. Then they worked night and day to prevent it from happening - and to have a second referendum which went against both 2016 and 2017 commitments.
They worked day and night because the British public had not given any party an unambiguous mandate to implement the referendum result. It was a hung parliament and Dominic Grieve et al was returned by his constituents who I'm pretty sure knew his views on the subject.
I'm not sure they did considering in his personal election material in 2017 he said that Brexit would happen. He then voted down every single Brexit option, something not even Ken Clarke did.
His constituents then chose not to return him in 2019 once he outed himself as willing to subvert democracy.
You and Seanie are silly on this one. The 2017 parliament was not bound by the 2015 one. A basic principle of our system of parliamentary sovereignty.
A referendum can't bind a parliament either.
Even if it did, it binds *that* parliament. Any parliament is free to pass any laws it sees fit regardless of the actions of previous parliaments, laws on statute etc etc.
There seem to be a few people who both bang the Brexit table as being required for parliamentary sovereignty whilst suggesting that parliament not be allowed to be sovereign.
As Johnson gets more and more desperate to cling on, whatever the cost and whoever is hurt in the crossfire, we will increasingly find out whether the Conservative Party has gone GOP and is incapable of stopping this dangerous lunatic who causing incalculable damage to every institution he goes near.
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
I am no fan of mid term polls but I wonder if that ComRes survey might have steeled a few knives. It really went against the narrative that Bozza, HY and Owls were trying to push that the panic was over and the public were happy to move on.
It's not over.
Once seen screwing the pooch, that can't be unseen.
Apparently Starmer wouldn't be getting smeared if we had all learned to love Jezza.
"Owen Jones @OwenJones84 Here's the thing. A lot of people didn't speak out loudly about, say, Jeremy Corbyn being falsely portrayed as a Czech spy because they didn't like the guy.
But in doing so, they helped normalise a right-wing smear machine, and well, here we are guys!"
That just looks to me like a perfectly valid and relevant observation from Jones.
No 10 dismiss Julian Smith's criticism of Johnson and stand by Johnson's Starmer/ Saville allegations. R4 ,PM.
Boris is going strong on this.
I really cannot understand why unless he has something that is a lot more direct than anything seen to date. Its another distraction technique and a deeply unimpressive one.
I think it's pretty obvious.
Now we're talking about whether Starmer actually protected Saville, and not about the fact that Johnson lied to Parliament. Repeatedly.
Yeah but we also discussing whether he misled Parliament about yet another thing.
Oh dear, does that mean HYUFD has to call for Johnson's resignation?
One can always hope
Each conservative announcing they have submitted their letter to the 1922 gives me a lift and just hope it becomes an avalanche
It's more like a trickle at the moment however.
It is the direction of travel and I expect more after tomorrow's pmqs
Your avalanche analogy is right.
I forget who it was who said, about bankruptcy, that it "happens very gradually, then very suddenly".
My reading is that is what is happening here. It will at times look very lacking in momentum, and people will say it is petering out. Then, very suddenly, he'll be gone.
I don't agree, I doubt there will be a VONC any time soon.
It’s time to look at my maxim on management decision making, based on 20 years of project management experience. “Management will always decide not to make a decision if that remains an option, especially if the point by which a decision should have been made has already passed”. For management read Tory MPs. So the real question is, when does not making a decision cease to be an option? I suggest after the May local elections next year. That would leave 12-18 months for a successor to turn things round. Until then there is always an excuse to wait, after that Johnson stays.
For 54 letters to call for him to go before then would require something even worse to happen than heretofore (and it’s hard to see what that could be if Johnson’s performance isn’t already deemed unacceptable), or one of the potential candidates to succeed him to break ranks and force the issue (also unlikely).
The 'worse' is happening every day and his interview in Kiev was a car crash, not for what he said but the caustic questions from journalists, and this is going to deteriorate every day including tomorrow's pmqs, especially if he uses Savile v Starmer
Indeed, I now think he will be very fortunate to survive the week
He will indeed be very fortunate. I know you have already decided, but my point is that if as a Tory MP you haven't already made your mind up, I can't see anything dramatic enough happening to override your instinct (like my management) to 'wait and see'. The constant drip, drip, drip hasn't been enough so far, why will that change for more than a handful of MPs?
PMQs tomorrow, Humble Address, more embarrassing pressers, bad polls, couplemore MPs going public. That's how drip drip drips work.
PMQs = Rayner v Raab do we think?
That will be interesting.
In presentational politics, big picture generally beats master of the detail (behind the scenes, often the opposite). Which is why Starmer often struggles against the clown. But Rayner is big picture and Raab is the lawyer; Rayner should be short odds on coming out ahead.
I expect it to be Boris v Starmer and pure theatre
Boris is home this evening
Dull. Repeat of yday
His mps will be the focus
Will someone do something dramatic
I think it was last week that David Davis deployed Leo Amery, which seemed dramatic enough at the time, but wasn't enough to conjure up 54 letters.
Maybe someone will bite their thumb at Johnson this week?
Is he back from Ukraine in time for the weekly 30 minutes of LIES and HATE?
Apparently Starmer wouldn't be getting smeared if we had all learned to love Jezza.
"Owen Jones @OwenJones84 Here's the thing. A lot of people didn't speak out loudly about, say, Jeremy Corbyn being falsely portrayed as a Czech spy because they didn't like the guy.
But in doing so, they helped normalise a right-wing smear machine, and well, here we are guys!"
That just looks to me like a perfectly valid and relevant observation from Jones.
Nah. The only thing that would have stopped such smears was Starmer not becoming LOTO
My ex-colleagues WhatsApp group is agog at the £8.5bn written off on non-delivered or non-compliant PPE.
Remember that PPE contracts were awarded to Tories with no record in procuring PPE without tender or clauses requiring delivery of actual goods fit for purpose. As well as Liar presiding over a pissed-up Downing Street and endlessly lying to parliament, he has also presided over brazen and open corruption.
And certain people still defend *that*
Most of that was actually due to the price being inflated, not due to non-delivery or non-compliance. Who'd have thunk it when there was a made scramble for PPE going on.
Oh dear, does that mean HYUFD has to call for Johnson's resignation?
One can always hope
Each conservative announcing they have submitted their letter to the 1922 gives me a lift and just hope it becomes an avalanche
It's more like a trickle at the moment however.
It is the direction of travel and I expect more after tomorrow's pmqs
Your avalanche analogy is right.
I forget who it was who said, about bankruptcy, that it "happens very gradually, then very suddenly".
My reading is that is what is happening here. It will at times look very lacking in momentum, and people will say it is petering out. Then, very suddenly, he'll be gone.
I don't agree, I doubt there will be a VONC any time soon.
It’s time to look at my maxim on management decision making, based on 20 years of project management experience. “Management will always decide not to make a decision if that remains an option, especially if the point by which a decision should have been made has already passed”. For management read Tory MPs. So the real question is, when does not making a decision cease to be an option? I suggest after the May local elections next year. That would leave 12-18 months for a successor to turn things round. Until then there is always an excuse to wait, after that Johnson stays.
For 54 letters to call for him to go before then would require something even worse to happen than heretofore (and it’s hard to see what that could be if Johnson’s performance isn’t already deemed unacceptable), or one of the potential candidates to succeed him to break ranks and force the issue (also unlikely).
The 'worse' is happening every day and his interview in Kiev was a car crash, not for what he said but the caustic questions from journalists, and this is going to deteriorate every day including tomorrow's pmqs, especially if he uses Savile v Starmer
Indeed, I now think he will be very fortunate to survive the week
He will indeed be very fortunate. I know you have already decided, but my point is that if as a Tory MP you haven't already made your mind up, I can't see anything dramatic enough happening to override your instinct (like my management) to 'wait and see'. The constant drip, drip, drip hasn't been enough so far, why will that change for more than a handful of MPs?
PMQs tomorrow, Humble Address, more embarrassing pressers, bad polls, couplemore MPs going public. That's how drip drip drips work.
PMQs = Rayner v Raab do we think?
That will be interesting.
In presentational politics, big picture generally beats master of the detail (behind the scenes, often the opposite). Which is why Starmer often struggles against the clown. But Rayner is big picture and Raab is the lawyer; Rayner should be short odds on coming out ahead.
I expect it to be Boris v Starmer and pure theatre
Most interesting point from Danish modellers they explicitly model human behaviour change that happens when reports of cases rising. They also model different areas of society based upon susceptible depletion based on previous waves.
I just don't understand how Johnson is not going to have to resign when he is fined for attending parties that he clearly and explicitly told Parliament did not happen.
It was a clear lie.
He can only stay if the convention and ministerial code about lying to the Commons is over and finished.
Tory MPs should bear in mind where that takes the country and our democracy.
They should close their eyes and imagine that Corbyn and his fellow travellers had won a GE and could lie at the despatch box as much as they like.
DAZN closing on deal to buy BT Sport and its Premier League rights
BT chiefs have opened talks with the Premier League to seek its approval for the sale of BT Sport to another broadcaster, with the streaming service DAZN the favourite to secure the takeover.
The Premier League is BT Sport’s biggest domestic partner in terms of TV rights with a deal stretching until 2025, and it has to give its agreement to a sale. BT also has to obtain approval from Uefa because it has the British rights for the Champions League and Europa League.
Discovery, the US media giant, is also interested in acquiring BT Sport or forming a joint venture and it is understood to remain in the running.
Oh dear, does that mean HYUFD has to call for Johnson's resignation?
One can always hope
Each conservative announcing they have submitted their letter to the 1922 gives me a lift and just hope it becomes an avalanche
It's more like a trickle at the moment however.
It is the direction of travel and I expect more after tomorrow's pmqs
Your avalanche analogy is right.
I forget who it was who said, about bankruptcy, that it "happens very gradually, then very suddenly".
My reading is that is what is happening here. It will at times look very lacking in momentum, and people will say it is petering out. Then, very suddenly, he'll be gone.
I don't agree, I doubt there will be a VONC any time soon.
It’s time to look at my maxim on management decision making, based on 20 years of project management experience. “Management will always decide not to make a decision if that remains an option, especially if the point by which a decision should have been made has already passed”. For management read Tory MPs. So the real question is, when does not making a decision cease to be an option? I suggest after the May local elections next year. That would leave 12-18 months for a successor to turn things round. Until then there is always an excuse to wait, after that Johnson stays.
For 54 letters to call for him to go before then would require something even worse to happen than heretofore (and it’s hard to see what that could be if Johnson’s performance isn’t already deemed unacceptable), or one of the potential candidates to succeed him to break ranks and force the issue (also unlikely).
The 'worse' is happening every day and his interview in Kiev was a car crash, not for what he said but the caustic questions from journalists, and this is going to deteriorate every day including tomorrow's pmqs, especially if he uses Savile v Starmer
Indeed, I now think he will be very fortunate to survive the week
He will indeed be very fortunate. I know you have already decided, but my point is that if as a Tory MP you haven't already made your mind up, I can't see anything dramatic enough happening to override your instinct (like my management) to 'wait and see'. The constant drip, drip, drip hasn't been enough so far, why will that change for more than a handful of MPs?
PMQs tomorrow, Humble Address, more embarrassing pressers, bad polls, couplemore MPs going public. That's how drip drip drips work.
PMQs = Rayner v Raab do we think?
That will be interesting.
In presentational politics, big picture generally beats master of the detail (behind the scenes, often the opposite). Which is why Starmer often struggles against the clown. But Rayner is big picture and Raab is the lawyer; Rayner should be short odds on coming out ahead.
I expect it to be Boris v Starmer and pure theatre
Boris is home this evening
Dull. Repeat of yday
His mps will be the focus
Will someone do something dramatic
I think it was last week that David Davis deployed Leo Amery, which seemed dramatic enough at the time, but wasn't enough to conjure up 54 letters.
Maybe someone will bite their thumb at Johnson this week?
I think as David Davis sat down he had visions of being the Geoffrey Howe de nos jours.
I can see his giant head filling with his original and damning statement (not damning and not original) resonating through time as the moment Boris fell.
He pictured endless replays on the news and it being replayed on BBC parliament in 30 years time.
Unfortunately he wasn’t the roaring lion that he thought he was, not even the SAS assassin but a dead sheep that was full of gas that deflated over two weeks with only the farmer and hill walkers noticing and remembering the noise.
It needs someone nobody would expect to deliver the coup de grace rather than the ineffectual Coup de Trump.
I just don't understand how Johnson is not going to have to resign when he is fined for attending parties that he clearly and explicitly told Parliament did not happen.
It was a clear lie.
He can only stay if the convention and ministerial code about lying to the Commons is over and finished.
Tory MPs should bear in mind where that takes the country and our democracy.
They should close their eyes and imagine that Corbyn and his fellow travellers had won a GE and could lie at the despatch box as much as they like.
Perhaps we should remember it was the coverup that did for Nixon, not the break in. In fact, for many years there was no conclusive evidence to show he had ordered or even knew about the break in (although we all knew he did, of course).
However, one point does quite alarm me. Is it true the Met has said they will not name any individuals who are fined over lockdown breaches in this case? Not only does that run counter to the police's previous practice where they've named several people even when they had been cleared, but this was on public property. Don't we as the public have a right to know who's been breaking laws in our houses?
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long rant about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
My ex-colleagues WhatsApp group is agog at the £8.5bn written off on non-delivered or non-compliant PPE.
Remember that PPE contracts were awarded to Tories with no record in procuring PPE without tender or clauses requiring delivery of actual goods fit for purpose. As well as Liar presiding over a pissed-up Downing Street and endlessly lying to parliament, he has also presided over brazen and open corruption.
And certain people still defend *that*
Most of that was actually due to the price being inflated, not due to non-delivery or non-compliance. Who'd have thunk it when there was a made scramble for PPE going on.
There were two options: not getting any PPE in time, and paying whatever the market wanted for a very limited and suddenly in-demand resource.
The government chose the latter. It seems many of the people who were screaming about the lack of PPE in April/May 2020 are now screeching about its cost.
That is not to excuse fraud where it has happened, but the idea that the cost of PPE was not going to be extortionate during that period is fanciful. The government did everything it could to get the PPE kit - remember somebody from Labour standing up and showing a list of 'suppliers' (some bogus) that they claimed had not been contacted?
"The driver who mowed down and killed a man who had just stabbed his ex-partner to death in the street in Maida Vale has been released without charge. The Metropolitan Police said that investigators had reviewed the law around self-defence and defence of another, and now considered the 26-year-old "a vital witness" rather than a suspect."
I just don't understand how Johnson is not going to have to resign when he is fined for attending parties that he clearly and explicitly told Parliament did not happen.
It was a clear lie.
He can only stay if the convention and ministerial code about lying to the Commons is over and finished.
Tory MPs should bear in mind where that takes the country and our democracy.
They should close their eyes and imagine that Corbyn and his fellow travellers had won a GE and could lie at the despatch box as much as they like.
Perhaps we should remember it was the coverup that did for Nixon, not the break in. In fact, for many years there was no conclusive evidence to show he had ordered or even knew about the break in (although we all knew he did, of course).
However, one point does quite alarm me. Is it true the Met has said they will not name any individuals who are fined over lockdown breaches in this case? Not only does that run counter to the police's previous practice where they've named several people even when they had been cleared, but this was on public property. Don't we as the public have a right to know who's been breaking laws in our houses?
Yes, I did wonder about the keeping the names quiet bit. I am pretty sure the student in Nottingham was named when he got hit with a £10k fine for a house party with cakes.
Not sure about the public property bit though. These are Crown properties aren't they?
Apparently Starmer wouldn't be getting smeared if we had all learned to love Jezza.
"Owen Jones @OwenJones84 Here's the thing. A lot of people didn't speak out loudly about, say, Jeremy Corbyn being falsely portrayed as a Czech spy because they didn't like the guy.
But in doing so, they helped normalise a right-wing smear machine, and well, here we are guys!"
That just looks to me like a perfectly valid and relevant observation from Jones.
Sounds a bit paranoid. I thought Ed Miliband was the most smeared Labour leader. Corbyn never had a chance after three quarters of his own MPs voted against him and they weren't reacting to smears
I just don't understand how Johnson is not going to have to resign when he is fined for attending parties that he clearly and explicitly told Parliament did not happen.
It was a clear lie.
He can only stay if the convention and ministerial code about lying to the Commons is over and finished.
Tory MPs should bear in mind where that takes the country and our democracy.
They should close their eyes and imagine that Corbyn and his fellow travellers had won a GE and could lie at the despatch box as much as they like.
Perhaps we should remember it was the coverup that did for Nixon, not the break in. In fact, for many years there was no conclusive evidence to show he had ordered or even knew about the break in (although we all knew he did, of course).
However, one point does quite alarm me. Is it true the Met has said they will not name any individuals who are fined over lockdown breaches in this case? Not only does that run counter to the police's previous practice where they've named several people even when they had been cleared, but this was on public property. Don't we as the public have a right to know who's been breaking laws in our houses?
Yes, I did wonder about the keeping the names quiet bit. I am pretty sure the student in Nottingham was named when he got hit with a £10k fine for a house party with cakes.
Not sure about the public property bit though. These are Crown properties aren't they?
Or the woman in Derbyshire, later cleared?
On your second paragraph, no. The official owner is the Secretary of State concerned:
"The driver who mowed down and killed a man who had just stabbed his ex-partner to death in the street in Maida Vale has been released without charge. The Metropolitan Police said that investigators had reviewed the law around self-defence and defence of another, and now considered the 26-year-old "a vital witness" rather than a suspect."
Well, that's good, but actually it was right he should be treated as a suspect at first if only so he could be given proper cautions, protections and legal counsel. Bearing in mind, he had just deliberately killed somebody. Yes, we could all see he had good reasons and I've no doubt the police could too, but suppose he had turned out to be a husband/boyfriend of one of the dead people?
I am as fervent as anyone except possibly @Cyclefree in my disdain for the police, but I think they did this one the right way round.
I just don't understand how Johnson is not going to have to resign when he is fined for attending parties that he clearly and explicitly told Parliament did not happen.
It was a clear lie.
He can only stay if the convention and ministerial code about lying to the Commons is over and finished.
Tory MPs should bear in mind where that takes the country and our democracy.
They should close their eyes and imagine that Corbyn and his fellow travellers had won a GE and could lie at the despatch box as much as they like.
Perhaps we should remember it was the coverup that did for Nixon, not the break in. In fact, for many years there was no conclusive evidence to show he had ordered or even knew about the break in (although we all knew he did, of course).
However, one point does quite alarm me. Is it true the Met has said they will not name any individuals who are fined over lockdown breaches in this case? Not only does that run counter to the police's previous practice where they've named several people even when they had been cleared, but this was on public property. Don't we as the public have a right to know who's been breaking laws in our houses?
Yes, I did wonder about the keeping the names quiet bit. I am pretty sure the student in Nottingham was named when he got hit with a £10k fine for a house party with cakes.
Not sure about the public property bit though. These are Crown properties aren't they?
Or the woman in Derbyshire, later cleared?
On your second paragraph, no. The official owner is the Secretary of State concerned:
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
As you full know the Liberal Unionists fully backed Salisbury's Conservatives in 1892. Gladstone's Liberals only got into power because they were equally supported by the Irish Nationalists
My ex-colleagues WhatsApp group is agog at the £8.5bn written off on non-delivered or non-compliant PPE.
Remember that PPE contracts were awarded to Tories with no record in procuring PPE without tender or clauses requiring delivery of actual goods fit for purpose. As well as Liar presiding over a pissed-up Downing Street and endlessly lying to parliament, he has also presided over brazen and open corruption.
And certain people still defend *that*
Most of that was actually due to the price being inflated, not due to non-delivery or non-compliance. Who'd have thunk it when there was a made scramble for PPE going on.
There were two options: not getting any PPE in time, and paying whatever the market wanted for a very limited and suddenly in-demand resource.
The government chose the latter. It seems many of the people who were screaming about the lack of PPE in April/May 2020 are now screeching about its cost.
That is not to excuse fraud where it has happened, but the idea that the cost of PPE was not going to be extortionate during that period is fanciful. The government did everything it could to get the PPE kit - remember somebody from Labour standing up and showing a list of 'suppliers' (some bogus) that they claimed had not been contacted?
It’s such a shame. RochdalePioneers’ industry-insider knowledge would make him one of PB’s most interesting posters were he not so horribly partisan. He’s a bit like Boris, if Boris were a wet-behind-the-ears dissapointed brexit voter.
I just don't understand how Johnson is not going to have to resign when he is fined for attending parties that he clearly and explicitly told Parliament did not happen.
It was a clear lie.
He can only stay if the convention and ministerial code about lying to the Commons is over and finished.
Tory MPs should bear in mind where that takes the country and our democracy.
They should close their eyes and imagine that Corbyn and his fellow travellers had won a GE and could lie at the despatch box as much as they like.
Perhaps we should remember it was the coverup that did for Nixon, not the break in. In fact, for many years there was no conclusive evidence to show he had ordered or even knew about the break in (although we all knew he did, of course).
However, one point does quite alarm me. Is it true the Met has said they will not name any individuals who are fined over lockdown breaches in this case? Not only does that run counter to the police's previous practice where they've named several people even when they had been cleared, but this was on public property. Don't we as the public have a right to know who's been breaking laws in our houses?
Yes, I did wonder about the keeping the names quiet bit. I am pretty sure the student in Nottingham was named when he got hit with a £10k fine for a house party with cakes.
Not sure about the public property bit though. These are Crown properties aren't they?
Or the woman in Derbyshire, later cleared?
On your second paragraph, no. The official owner is the Secretary of State concerned:
Amongst several others I've been referring back to 1992-7 and specifically the General Election of 01st May 1997 which heralded one of the three greatest sea changes of my lifetime (Thatcher in 1979, Blair in 1997 and Brexit in 2016).
Of course, Keir Starmer's Labour start from a long way further back than Tony Blair's Labour and the tories the converse.
So I'm interested in betting on actual seat gains and losses.
1997 Labour Increased 145 Tories decreased 178
2024 The latest BritainElects prediction is: Labour increase 110 Tories decrease 126
What made things even worse for the tories was that in 1997 the LibDems gained 26 seats to be on 46, whereas Britain Elects is predicting a gain of 9 to reach 20 total.
On that amazing day Tony Blair's Labour polled 43% just below the level of today's ComRes for Labour on 44%.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
They'd have said the latter, like the SNP. But no serious country can allow itself to be put at risk from continuous constitutional uncertainty. So, like the SNP, they should rightly be told to take a running jump.
Really? If UKIP had won the 2017 General Election, they should have been prevented from enacting a second referendum?
I don't agree.
If they'd won a General Election on that manifesto then fair enough.
The problem in 2017-19 is that the parties seeking to have a second referendum lost the 2017 election handsomely. Less than 10% of MPs elected in 2017 were done so on a pledge of holding a second referendum.
Grieve, Starmer, Woolaston and the rest who tried to subvert democracy (not the Lib Dems to be fair) were all elected on a platform of saying the 2016 referendum was decisive and that Brexit would happen. Then they worked night and day to prevent it from happening - and to have a second referendum which went against both 2016 and 2017 commitments.
They worked day and night because the British public had not given any party an unambiguous mandate to implement the referendum result. It was a hung parliament and Dominic Grieve et al was returned by his constituents who I'm pretty sure knew his views on the subject.
I'm not sure they did considering in his personal election material in 2017 he said that Brexit would happen. He then voted down every single Brexit option, something not even Ken Clarke did.
His constituents then chose not to return him in 2019 once he outed himself as willing to subvert democracy.
You and Seanie are silly on this one. The 2017 parliament was not bound by the 2015 one. A basic principle of our system of parliamentary sovereignty.
A referendum can't bind a parliament either.
Even if it did, it binds *that* parliament. Any parliament is free to pass any laws it sees fit regardless of the actions of previous parliaments, laws on statute etc etc.
There seem to be a few people who both bang the Brexit table as being required for parliamentary sovereignty whilst suggesting that parliament not be allowed to be sovereign.
Of course new parliament is not bound by what previous parliaments did. Yes a new vote would have been democratic, assuming it had been voted through etc. But the point is that joe public, the ones that we decry for not being politically engaged, and for not voting, would have felt cheated. For them it was a vote to be respected. You cannot get away from that. And it was that that led to the Johnson majority. Lots of remain voters felt that the vote should be respected. If we elect a new government in 2024 on a manifesto to rejoin, or Closer alighnment then so be it.
I just don't understand how Johnson is not going to have to resign when he is fined for attending parties that he clearly and explicitly told Parliament did not happen.
It was a clear lie.
He can only stay if the convention and ministerial code about lying to the Commons is over and finished.
Tory MPs should bear in mind where that takes the country and our democracy.
They should close their eyes and imagine that Corbyn and his fellow travellers had won a GE and could lie at the despatch box as much as they like.
Perhaps we should remember it was the coverup that did for Nixon, not the break in. In fact, for many years there was no conclusive evidence to show he had ordered or even knew about the break in (although we all knew he did, of course).
However, one point does quite alarm me. Is it true the Met has said they will not name any individuals who are fined over lockdown breaches in this case? Not only does that run counter to the police's previous practice where they've named several people even when they had been cleared, but this was on public property. Don't we as the public have a right to know who's been breaking laws in our houses?
Yes, I did wonder about the keeping the names quiet bit. I am pretty sure the student in Nottingham was named when he got hit with a £10k fine for a house party with cakes.
Not sure about the public property bit though. These are Crown properties aren't they?
Or the woman in Derbyshire, later cleared?
On your second paragraph, no. The official owner is the Secretary of State concerned:
As this illustrates, the rule exists because lying to the House was once regarded as such a serious offence that it required a full parliamentary debate & contempt proceedings. We've lost the sanction against lying, but retained the sanction against those who draw attention to it
This is a worry: who decides that Boris lied, if he doesn't admit it? Speaker can say if lie, then out of order, but can he adjudicate on the substantive point?
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
As you full know the Liberal Unionists fully backed Salisbury's Conservatives in 1892. Gladstone's Liberals only got into power because they were equally supported by the Irish Nationalists
Yes, to both. I am an expert on politics in that period, having written seven articles and a book on it, and also neither party had a majority and both had to rely on allied parties to form a government.
So your point there isn't correct either. I know Wiki says different but as so often Wiki is wrong.
Equally, that should strengthen your case. So why are you continuing to wriggle?
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Even if Boris loses a VONC amongst MPs, loyalists say he would fight a subsequent leadership election. If he gets enough support still from loyalist MPs to get to the final two, a la Corbyn 2016 he would then let Tory members decide
Apparently Starmer wouldn't be getting smeared if we had all learned to love Jezza.
"Owen Jones @OwenJones84 Here's the thing. A lot of people didn't speak out loudly about, say, Jeremy Corbyn being falsely portrayed as a Czech spy because they didn't like the guy.
But in doing so, they helped normalise a right-wing smear machine, and well, here we are guys!"
That just looks to me like a perfectly valid and relevant observation from Jones.
Sounds a bit paranoid. I thought Ed Miliband was the most smeared Labour leader. Corbyn never had a chance after three quarters of his own MPs voted against him and they weren't reacting to smears
Isn't there a qualitative difference between a newspaper smearing someone like this and the actual PM?
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
You really ought to retract that
Absolutely I will not.
He said I had no brain the other night, if you insult me I will insult back.
There are also far worse insults used by some on here than that
Even if Boris loses a VONC amongst MPs, loyalists say he would fight a subsequent leadership election. If he gets enough support still from loyalist MPs to get to the final two, a la Corbyn 2016 he would then let Tory members decide
"The driver who mowed down and killed a man who had just stabbed his ex-partner to death in the street in Maida Vale has been released without charge. The Metropolitan Police said that investigators had reviewed the law around self-defence and defence of another, and now considered the 26-year-old "a vital witness" rather than a suspect."
Well, that's good, but actually it was right he should be treated as a suspect at first if only so he could be given proper cautions, protections and legal counsel. Bearing in mind, he had just deliberately killed somebody. Yes, we could all see he had good reasons and I've no doubt the police could too, but suppose he had turned out to be a husband/boyfriend of one of the dead people?
I am as fervent as anyone except possibly @Cyclefree in my disdain for the police, but I think they did this one the right way round.
I’m not particularly bothered about the police here, just the lack of media interest. Obviously pretty young white women abducted and murdered is more newsworthy than a person of colour killed by a stalky ex husband, who was killed by a bystander.
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
As you full know the Liberal Unionists fully backed Salisbury's Conservatives in 1892. Gladstone's Liberals only got into power because they were equally supported by the Irish Nationalists
Yes, to both. I am an expert on politics in that period, having written seven articles and a book on it, and also neither party had a majority and both had to rely on allied parties to form a government.
So your point there isn't correct either. I know Wiki says different but as so often Wiki is wrong.
Equally, that should strengthen your case. So why are you continuing to wriggle?
My whole point was neither party had a majority and had to use allied parties
Even if Boris loses a VONC amongst MPs, loyalists say he would fight a subsequent leadership election. If he gets enough support still from loyalist MPs to get to the final two, a la Corbyn 2016 he would then let Tory members decide
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
You really ought to retract that
Absolutely I will not.
He said I had no brain the other night, if you insult me I will insult back.
There are also far worse insults used by some on here than that
You've forgotten I said you had no moral courage as well.
Even if Boris loses a VONC amongst MPs, loyalists say he would fight a subsequent leadership election. If he gets enough support still from loyalist MPs to get to the final two, a la Corbyn 2016 he would then let Tory members decide
My ex-colleagues WhatsApp group is agog at the £8.5bn written off on non-delivered or non-compliant PPE.
Remember that PPE contracts were awarded to Tories with no record in procuring PPE without tender or clauses requiring delivery of actual goods fit for purpose. As well as Liar presiding over a pissed-up Downing Street and endlessly lying to parliament, he has also presided over brazen and open corruption.
And certain people still defend *that*
Most of that was actually due to the price being inflated, not due to non-delivery or non-compliance. Who'd have thunk it when there was a made scramble for PPE going on.
There were two options: not getting any PPE in time, and paying whatever the market wanted for a very limited and suddenly in-demand resource.
The government chose the latter. It seems many of the people who were screaming about the lack of PPE in April/May 2020 are now screeching about its cost.
That is not to excuse fraud where it has happened, but the idea that the cost of PPE was not going to be extortionate during that period is fanciful. The government did everything it could to get the PPE kit - remember somebody from Labour standing up and showing a list of 'suppliers' (some bogus) that they claimed had not been contacted?
Hypocrisy runs rampant. See also: people who spent March 2020 to January 2022 demanding lockdowns now complaining about the costs of them.
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
You really ought to retract that
Absolutely I will not.
You take your lead from BoJo.
But it was more the first half. He clearly is an expert having written articles and a book on the subject, so whilst you may feel it's your right to call him pompous for being an expert, it isn't your right to tell a lie.
I just don't understand how Johnson is not going to have to resign when he is fined for attending parties that he clearly and explicitly told Parliament did not happen.
It was a clear lie.
He can only stay if the convention and ministerial code about lying to the Commons is over and finished.
Tory MPs should bear in mind where that takes the country and our democracy.
They should close their eyes and imagine that Corbyn and his fellow travellers had won a GE and could lie at the despatch box as much as they like.
Perhaps we should remember it was the coverup that did for Nixon, not the break in. In fact, for many years there was no conclusive evidence to show he had ordered or even knew about the break in (although we all knew he did, of course).
However, one point does quite alarm me. Is it true the Met has said they will not name any individuals who are fined over lockdown breaches in this case? Not only does that run counter to the police's previous practice where they've named several people even when they had been cleared, but this was on public property. Don't we as the public have a right to know who's been breaking laws in our houses?
Yes, I did wonder about the keeping the names quiet bit. I am pretty sure the student in Nottingham was named when he got hit with a £10k fine for a house party with cakes.
Not sure about the public property bit though. These are Crown properties aren't they?
Or the woman in Derbyshire, later cleared?
On your second paragraph, no. The official owner is the Secretary of State concerned:
Which seems to leave open the possibility that everyone involved but him gets fined, on the basis that (a) it's his house, and (b) he didn't organise any of the parties.
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
As you full know the Liberal Unionists fully backed Salisbury's Conservatives in 1892. Gladstone's Liberals only got into power because they were equally supported by the Irish Nationalists
Yes, to both. I am an expert on politics in that period, having written seven articles and a book on it, and also neither party had a majority and both had to rely on allied parties to form a government.
So your point there isn't correct either. I know Wiki says different but as so often Wiki is wrong.
Equally, that should strengthen your case. So why are you continuing to wriggle?
My whole point was neither party had a majority and had to use allied parties
No, your claim was 'However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.'
Which as I have pointed out was in fact incorrect. In fact, on a careful check the Conservatives won 269 seats to 272 Liberals, a gap of three not one as I thought.
So they were not the largest party.
The Irish Nationalists of course invariably supported the Liberals anyway in the hope of getting a Dublin Parliament. Even from 1906 to 1910 when the Liberals had 242 more seats than the Unionists. Just as the Liberal Unionists backed the Tories for the opposite reason. So it's a bit misleading of Wiki to classify the parties that way.
I don't get the feeling whoever did the entries for the nineteenth century really knew what they were doing (they keep lumping the Radicals and Peelites in with the Whig totals from 1846 to 1859, for example). It's on my list of things to correct when I ever have a moment.
"The driver who mowed down and killed a man who had just stabbed his ex-partner to death in the street in Maida Vale has been released without charge. The Metropolitan Police said that investigators had reviewed the law around self-defence and defence of another, and now considered the 26-year-old "a vital witness" rather than a suspect."
Well, that's good, but actually it was right he should be treated as a suspect at first if only so he could be given proper cautions, protections and legal counsel. Bearing in mind, he had just deliberately killed somebody. Yes, we could all see he had good reasons and I've no doubt the police could too, but suppose he had turned out to be a husband/boyfriend of one of the dead people?
I am as fervent as anyone except possibly @Cyclefree in my disdain for the police, but I think they did this one the right way round.
I’m not particularly bothered about the police here, just the lack of media interest. Obviously pretty young white women abducted and murdered is more newsworthy than a person of colour killed by a stalky ex husband, who was killed by a bystander.
The problem with the arrest-to-protect-your-rights stuff is that the arrest is recorded and will turn up on certain kinds of background checks.
Plenty of jobs ask you - have you ever been arrested?
I had this argument with a policeman once, socially. It was curious how he couldn't grasp the idea that you could make provision for all the rights stuff, without an arrest. It would be perfectly possible to write a law - something like - "You subject to a police enquiry" - all the rights ensue when they announce that, formally.
Even if Boris loses a VONC amongst MPs, loyalists say he would fight a subsequent leadership election. If he gets enough support still from loyalist MPs to get to the final two, a la Corbyn 2016 he would then let Tory members decide
Oh dear, does that mean HYUFD has to call for Johnson's resignation?
One can always hope
Each conservative announcing they have submitted their letter to the 1922 gives me a lift and just hope it becomes an avalanche
It's more like a trickle at the moment however.
It is the direction of travel and I expect more after tomorrow's pmqs
Your avalanche analogy is right.
I forget who it was who said, about bankruptcy, that it "happens very gradually, then very suddenly".
My reading is that is what is happening here. It will at times look very lacking in momentum, and people will say it is petering out. Then, very suddenly, he'll be gone.
I don't agree, I doubt there will be a VONC any time soon.
It’s time to look at my maxim on management decision making, based on 20 years of project management experience. “Management will always decide not to make a decision if that remains an option, especially if the point by which a decision should have been made has already passed”. For management read Tory MPs. So the real question is, when does not making a decision cease to be an option? I suggest after the May local elections next year. That would leave 12-18 months for a successor to turn things round. Until then there is always an excuse to wait, after that Johnson stays.
For 54 letters to call for him to go before then would require something even worse to happen than heretofore (and it’s hard to see what that could be if Johnson’s performance isn’t already deemed unacceptable), or one of the potential candidates to succeed him to break ranks and force the issue (also unlikely).
The 'worse' is happening every day and his interview in Kiev was a car crash, not for what he said but the caustic questions from journalists, and this is going to deteriorate every day including tomorrow's pmqs, especially if he uses Savile v Starmer
Indeed, I now think he will be very fortunate to survive the week
He will indeed be very fortunate. I know you have already decided, but my point is that if as a Tory MP you haven't already made your mind up, I can't see anything dramatic enough happening to override your instinct (like my management) to 'wait and see'. The constant drip, drip, drip hasn't been enough so far, why will that change for more than a handful of MPs?
PMQs tomorrow, Humble Address, more embarrassing pressers, bad polls, couplemore MPs going public. That's how drip drip drips work.
PMQs = Rayner v Raab do we think?
That will be interesting.
In presentational politics, big picture generally beats master of the detail (behind the scenes, often the opposite). Which is why Starmer often struggles against the clown. But Rayner is big picture and Raab is the lawyer; Rayner should be short odds on coming out ahead.
I expect it to be Boris v Starmer and pure theatre
Boris is home this evening
Dull. Repeat of yday
His mps will be the focus
Will someone do something dramatic
I think it was last week that David Davis deployed Leo Amery, which seemed dramatic enough at the time, but wasn't enough to conjure up 54 letters.
Maybe someone will bite their thumb at Johnson this week?
I think as David Davis sat down he had visions of being the Geoffrey Howe de nos jours.
I can see his giant head filling with his original and damning statement (not damning and not original) resonating through time as the moment Boris fell.
He pictured endless replays on the news and it being replayed on BBC parliament in 30 years time.
Unfortunately he wasn’t the roaring lion that he thought he was, not even the SAS assassin but a dead sheep that was full of gas that deflated over two weeks with only the farmer and hill walkers noticing and remembering the noise.
It needs someone nobody would expect to deliver the coup de grace rather than the ineffectual Coup de Trump.
He went for a soundbite without the surrounding full and reasoned speech. Mistake.
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
You really ought to retract that
Absolutely I will not.
You take your lead from BoJo.
But it was more the first half. He clearly is an expert having written articles and a book on the subject, so whilst you may feel it's your right to call him pompous for being an expert, it isn't your right to tell a lie.
Jeffrey Archer has written books, it does not make him the oracle of creative writing and literature
Even if Boris loses a VONC amongst MPs, loyalists say he would fight a subsequent leadership election. If he gets enough support still from loyalist MPs to get to the final two, a la Corbyn 2016 he would then let Tory members decide
Despite your assertion that I am part of Johnson's misinformation cabal (I am far too old and drink very little) I have never supported Johnson's tactic from yesterday. However I did say it was a very clever (if a cynical two footed studs up) challenge. As @rcs1000 has suggested it is a diversionary tactic to move the agenda to a discourse over Starmer rather than Johnson misleading Parliament.
I saw it as very dangerous for Starmer because there is now a subliminal connection between Starmer and Savile. It is straight out of the Crosby playbook. I also thought Johnson's drug use allegations against the Opposition front bench were dangerous. He wouldn't make the accusations outside Parliament, but the words just trip off his tongue.
Even if Boris loses a VONC amongst MPs, loyalists say he would fight a subsequent leadership election. If he gets enough support still from loyalist MPs to get to the final two, a la Corbyn 2016 he would then let Tory members decide
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
You really ought to retract that
Absolutely I will not.
You take your lead from BoJo.
But it was more the first half. He clearly is an expert having written articles and a book on the subject, so whilst you may feel it's your right to call him pompous for being an expert, it isn't your right to tell a lie.
In fairness, he took his lead on this from me. I told him off when having made another silly error like this he refused to admit it and kept claiming he had said something else. Like many people, I'm finding his currently increasingly bizarre attitude towards refusing to admit his mistakes, of which he makes plenty (as we all do, me included) both unedifying and unpleasant. And frustrating, because when he sticks to areas he does know he's actually pretty shrewd.
However, there is a certain irony in being accused of being pompous by somebody who thinks when the facts conflict with his views the facts are wrong.
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
You really ought to retract that
Absolutely I will not.
You take your lead from BoJo.
But it was more the first half. He clearly is an expert having written articles and a book on the subject, so whilst you may feel it's your right to call him pompous for being an expert, it isn't your right to tell a lie.
Jeffrey Archer has written books, it does not make him the oracle of creative writing and literature
He didn't get a doctorate from the University of Oxford. TBF neither did Mr Johnson. And he wrote a book about Churchill, apparently (not sure ig ghosted, or am I thinking of the Shakespeare one?).
And a thesis is a book by any standard. So Ydoethur has two to his credit (or perhaps two editions of the same book).
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
You really ought to retract that
Absolutely I will not.
You take your lead from BoJo.
But it was more the first half. He clearly is an expert having written articles and a book on the subject, so whilst you may feel it's your right to call him pompous for being an expert, it isn't your right to tell a lie.
Jeffrey Archer has written books, it does not make him the oracle of creative writing and literature
He didn't get a doctorate from the University of Oxford. TBF neither did Mr Johnson. And he wrote a book about Churchill, apparently (not sure ig ghosted, or am I thinking of the Shakespeare one?).
And a thesis is a book by any standard. So Ydoethur has two to his credit (or perhaps two editions of the same book).
Two of the same book. I am still trying to write another on railways, this time, in my snatches of spare time.
But the doctorate wasn't from Oxford, of course, it was from a much better uni
Edit - one reason I want to quit teaching or at least reduce my hours is I want more time to write.
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
You really ought to retract that
Absolutely I will not.
You take your lead from BoJo.
But it was more the first half. He clearly is an expert having written articles and a book on the subject, so whilst you may feel it's your right to call him pompous for being an expert, it isn't your right to tell a lie.
In fairness, he took his lead on this from me. I told him off when having made another silly error like this he refused to admit it and kept claiming he had said something else. Like many people, I'm finding his currently increasingly bizarre attitude towards refusing to admit his mistakes, of which he makes plenty (as we all do, me included) both unedifying and unpleasant. And frustrating, because when he sticks to areas he does know he's actually pretty shrewd.
However, there is a certain irony in being accused of being pompous by somebody who thinks when the facts conflict with his views the facts are wrong.
TBF he did admit the other day that he was wrong in writing something along the lines that the Scottish army joined the Parliamentarian forces in fighting against Cromwell, when I queried that interpretation of history (I forget his exact words).
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
You really ought to retract that
Absolutely I will not.
You take your lead from BoJo.
But it was more the first half. He clearly is an expert having written articles and a book on the subject, so whilst you may feel it's your right to call him pompous for being an expert, it isn't your right to tell a lie.
In fairness, he took his lead on this from me. I told him off when having made another silly error like this he refused to admit it and kept claiming he had said something else. Like many people, I'm finding his currently increasingly bizarre attitude towards refusing to admit his mistakes, of which he makes plenty (as we all do, me included) both unedifying and unpleasant. And frustrating, because when he sticks to areas he does know he's actually pretty shrewd.
However, there is a certain irony in being accused of being pompous by somebody who thinks when the facts conflict with his views the facts are wrong.
TBF he did admit the other day that he was wrong in writing something along the lines that the Scottish army joined the Parliamentarian forces in fighting against Cromwell, when I queried that interpretation of history (I forget his exact words).
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
They'd have said the latter, like the SNP. But no serious country can allow itself to be put at risk from continuous constitutional uncertainty. So, like the SNP, they should rightly be told to take a running jump.
Really? If UKIP had won the 2017 General Election, they should have been prevented from enacting a second referendum?
I don't agree.
If they'd won a General Election on that manifesto then fair enough.
The problem in 2017-19 is that the parties seeking to have a second referendum lost the 2017 election handsomely. Less than 10% of MPs elected in 2017 were done so on a pledge of holding a second referendum.
Grieve, Starmer, Woolaston and the rest who tried to subvert democracy (not the Lib Dems to be fair) were all elected on a platform of saying the 2016 referendum was decisive and that Brexit would happen. Then they worked night and day to prevent it from happening - and to have a second referendum which went against both 2016 and 2017 commitments.
They worked day and night because the British public had not given any party an unambiguous mandate to implement the referendum result. It was a hung parliament and Dominic Grieve et al was returned by his constituents who I'm pretty sure knew his views on the subject.
I'm not sure they did considering in his personal election material in 2017 he said that Brexit would happen. He then voted down every single Brexit option, something not even Ken Clarke did.
His constituents then chose not to return him in 2019 once he outed himself as willing to subvert democracy.
You and Seanie are silly on this one. The 2017 parliament was not bound by the 2015 one. A basic principle of our system of parliamentary sovereignty.
As I said if the 2017 Parliament had a majority pledging a new referendum when they were elected then that is democracy.
But when the likes of Grieve said they would honour the referendum result including in their 2017 election materials then do the opposite then that is undermining and subverting democracy.
It is no different to US Senators attempting to throw out the 2020 election result and replace it with saying Trump is elected President because they can, rather than because that's how people voted.
Just because you can does not always mean you should.
Robert Peston @Peston · 1h The argument from some Tory MPs - @markjenkinsonmp just now on @itvnews - that breaching Covid rules is equivalent to parking on a double yellow line is odd. They can’t think the threat to life from anti-social parking is the same as failing to limit the spread of a virus…
Robert Peston @Peston that killed more than 150,000
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
You really ought to retract that
Absolutely I will not.
You take your lead from BoJo.
But it was more the first half. He clearly is an expert having written articles and a book on the subject, so whilst you may feel it's your right to call him pompous for being an expert, it isn't your right to tell a lie.
In fairness, he took his lead on this from me. I told him off when having made another silly error like this he refused to admit it and kept claiming he had said something else. Like many people, I'm finding his currently increasingly bizarre attitude towards refusing to admit his mistakes, of which he makes plenty (as we all do, me included) both unedifying and unpleasant. And frustrating, because when he sticks to areas he does know he's actually pretty shrewd.
However, there is a certain irony in being accused of being pompous by somebody who thinks when the facts conflict with his views the facts are wrong.
TBF he did admit the other day that he was wrong in writing something along the lines that the Scottish army joined the Parliamentarian forces in fighting against Cromwell, when I queried that interpretation of history (I forget his exact words).
And he's apologised tonight.
We'll make a scholar of him yet...
Come on you know better than that. Scholars never apologise. The bitterest conflict is over the trivial details...
My ex-colleagues WhatsApp group is agog at the £8.5bn written off on non-delivered or non-compliant PPE.
Remember that PPE contracts were awarded to Tories with no record in procuring PPE without tender or clauses requiring delivery of actual goods fit for purpose. As well as Liar presiding over a pissed-up Downing Street and endlessly lying to parliament, he has also presided over brazen and open corruption.
And certain people still defend *that*
Where exactly would you have bought cheap PPE from in early 2020?
"The driver who mowed down and killed a man who had just stabbed his ex-partner to death in the street in Maida Vale has been released without charge. The Metropolitan Police said that investigators had reviewed the law around self-defence and defence of another, and now considered the 26-year-old "a vital witness" rather than a suspect."
Well, that's good, but actually it was right he should be treated as a suspect at first if only so he could be given proper cautions, protections and legal counsel. Bearing in mind, he had just deliberately killed somebody. Yes, we could all see he had good reasons and I've no doubt the police could too, but suppose he had turned out to be a husband/boyfriend of one of the dead people?
I am as fervent as anyone except possibly @Cyclefree in my disdain for the police, but I think they did this one the right way round.
I’m not particularly bothered about the police here, just the lack of media interest. Obviously pretty young white women abducted and murdered is more newsworthy than a person of colour killed by a stalky ex husband, who was killed by a bystander.
The problem with the arrest-to-protect-your-rights stuff is that the arrest is recorded and will turn up on certain kinds of background checks.
Plenty of jobs ask you - have you ever been arrested?
I had this argument with a policeman once, socially. It was curious how he couldn't grasp the idea that you could make provision for all the rights stuff, without an arrest. It would be perfectly possible to write a law - something like - "You subject to a police enquiry" - all the rights ensue when they announce that, formally.
AIUI - although I am no expert on this - that bit about background checks applies only to arrests for sex offences.
Also AUIUI employers shouldn't be asking if you have ever been arrested, only if you've ever been convicted, and then only for specific offences in a particular timeframe for certain jobs.
Robert Peston @Peston · 1h The argument from some Tory MPs - @markjenkinsonmp just now on @itvnews - that breaching Covid rules is equivalent to parking on a double yellow line is odd. They can’t think the threat to life from anti-social parking is the same as failing to limit the spread of a virus…
Robert Peston @Peston that killed more than 150,000
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
You really ought to retract that
Absolutely I will not.
You take your lead from BoJo.
But it was more the first half. He clearly is an expert having written articles and a book on the subject, so whilst you may feel it's your right to call him pompous for being an expert, it isn't your right to tell a lie.
In fairness, he took his lead on this from me. I told him off when having made another silly error like this he refused to admit it and kept claiming he had said something else. Like many people, I'm finding his currently increasingly bizarre attitude towards refusing to admit his mistakes, of which he makes plenty (as we all do, me included) both unedifying and unpleasant. And frustrating, because when he sticks to areas he does know he's actually pretty shrewd.
However, there is a certain irony in being accused of being pompous by somebody who thinks when the facts conflict with his views the facts are wrong.
TBF he did admit the other day that he was wrong in writing something along the lines that the Scottish army joined the Parliamentarian forces in fighting against Cromwell, when I queried that interpretation of history (I forget his exact words).
And he's apologised tonight.
We'll make a scholar of him yet...
Come on you know better than that. Scholars never apologise. The bitterest conflict is over the trivial details...
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
They'd have said the latter, like the SNP. But no serious country can allow itself to be put at risk from continuous constitutional uncertainty. So, like the SNP, they should rightly be told to take a running jump.
Really? If UKIP had won the 2017 General Election, they should have been prevented from enacting a second referendum?
I don't agree.
If they'd won a General Election on that manifesto then fair enough.
The problem in 2017-19 is that the parties seeking to have a second referendum lost the 2017 election handsomely. Less than 10% of MPs elected in 2017 were done so on a pledge of holding a second referendum.
Grieve, Starmer, Woolaston and the rest who tried to subvert democracy (not the Lib Dems to be fair) were all elected on a platform of saying the 2016 referendum was decisive and that Brexit would happen. Then they worked night and day to prevent it from happening - and to have a second referendum which went against both 2016 and 2017 commitments.
They worked day and night because the British public had not given any party an unambiguous mandate to implement the referendum result. It was a hung parliament and Dominic Grieve et al was returned by his constituents who I'm pretty sure knew his views on the subject.
I'm not sure they did considering in his personal election material in 2017 he said that Brexit would happen. He then voted down every single Brexit option, something not even Ken Clarke did.
His constituents then chose not to return him in 2019 once he outed himself as willing to subvert democracy.
You and Seanie are silly on this one. The 2017 parliament was not bound by the 2015 one. A basic principle of our system of parliamentary sovereignty.
As I said if the 2017 Parliament had a majority pledging a new referendum when they were elected then that is democracy.
But when the likes of Grieve said they would honour the referendum result including in their 2017 election materials then do the opposite then that is undermining and subverting democracy.
It is no different to US Senators attempting to throw out the 2020 election result and replace it with saying Trump is elected President because they can, rather than because that's how people voted.
Just because you can does not always mean you should.
That is a very fair point: there are a number of people who behaved with bad faith, such as Dominic Grieve.
By contrast, the former MP for Eastbourne Stephen Lloyd, was willing to lose the Liberal Democrat whip to maintain the promise he'd made to his electorate to support the referendum result.
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
You really ought to retract that
Absolutely I will not.
You take your lead from BoJo.
But it was more the first half. He clearly is an expert having written articles and a book on the subject, so whilst you may feel it's your right to call him pompous for being an expert, it isn't your right to tell a lie.
In fairness, he took his lead on this from me. I told him off when having made another silly error like this he refused to admit it and kept claiming he had said something else. Like many people, I'm finding his currently increasingly bizarre attitude towards refusing to admit his mistakes, of which he makes plenty (as we all do, me included) both unedifying and unpleasant. And frustrating, because when he sticks to areas he does know he's actually pretty shrewd.
However, there is a certain irony in being accused of being pompous by somebody who thinks when the facts conflict with his views the facts are wrong.
TBF he did admit the other day that he was wrong in writing something along the lines that the Scottish army joined the Parliamentarian forces in fighting against Cromwell, when I queried that interpretation of history (I forget his exact words).
And he's apologised tonight.
We'll make a scholar of him yet...
Come on you know better than that. Scholars never apologise. The bitterest conflict is over the trivial details...
Robert Peston @Peston · 1h The argument from some Tory MPs - @markjenkinsonmp just now on @itvnews - that breaching Covid rules is equivalent to parking on a double yellow line is odd. They can’t think the threat to life from anti-social parking is the same as failing to limit the spread of a virus…
Robert Peston @Peston that killed more than 150,000
Thing is, in a sense they are correct. The offences attracted fixed penalties (at the time, certainly). The reason it’s a huge scandal is that (a) these were the people setting the rules and (b) they didn’t feel the need to abide by them themselves.
The government chose the latter. It seems many of the people who were screaming about the lack of PPE in April/May 2020 are now screeching about its cost.
I knew that the same people screeching about "no PPE" would eventually moan about the cost. I have nothing but contempt for them.
Even if Boris loses a VONC amongst MPs, loyalists say he would fight a subsequent leadership election. If he gets enough support still from loyalist MPs to get to the final two, a la Corbyn 2016 he would then let Tory members decide
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
You really ought to retract that
Absolutely I will not.
You take your lead from BoJo.
But it was more the first half. He clearly is an expert having written articles and a book on the subject, so whilst you may feel it's your right to call him pompous for being an expert, it isn't your right to tell a lie.
In fairness, he took his lead on this from me. I told him off when having made another silly error like this he refused to admit it and kept claiming he had said something else. Like many people, I'm finding his currently increasingly bizarre attitude towards refusing to admit his mistakes, of which he makes plenty (as we all do, me included) both unedifying and unpleasant. And frustrating, because when he sticks to areas he does know he's actually pretty shrewd.
However, there is a certain irony in being accused of being pompous by somebody who thinks when the facts conflict with his views the facts are wrong.
TBF he did admit the other day that he was wrong in writing something along the lines that the Scottish army joined the Parliamentarian forces in fighting against Cromwell, when I queried that interpretation of history (I forget his exact words).
And he's apologised tonight.
We'll make a scholar of him yet...
Come on you know better than that. Scholars never apologise. The bitterest conflict is over the trivial details...
I knew it, I am a scholar.
I presume your thesis was on how people who have pineapple topped pizzas have been punished through the ages?
On the polls - there was definitely a swing back to the Conservatives as partygate faded in resonance. Once back in the spotlight it's clear the polls are going back to Labour. FWIW I think they will swing again but not by enough to save the Tories as long as Boris remains. His time is up and he needs to go. No amount of HYUFD's dodgy poll analysis can alter that. If he goes then it's all to play for as Starmer is currently the 'lucky general' benefiting from Boris's lunacy wrt flouting the covid regs. It really is not very complicated and I agree with Leon it is now truly boring and needs to end.
Of course Boris is in Ukraine this afternoon.
If Putin invaded Ukraine next week partygate would be forgotten within a week.
Precisely.
Nobody is going to forget soaring gas prices and the highest tax rates in 70 years though. Not now. Not for a generation.
Behold your tories.
That is also Sunak's Tories, so replacing Boris does not suddenly lead to a Tory win.
Only time a PM has won a general election since universal suffrage in 1918 after 10 years of their party in power was Major in 1992 and he had a big policy difference with Thatcher on the poll tax which he scrapped
You quite often play this game. By saying "since 1918" the suggestion you make is that it's common to have ten years in power.
My assumption is you're not counting 1918 itself or 1945 as cases of trying to save an election by changing a leader - neither Lloyd-George nor Churchill had won the previous election as party leader but were longstanding war PMs. One won (in a fashion), the other lost.
So you're left with: (i) 1964 - which in all fairness Douglas-Home very nearly pulled it off from an incredibly difficult position; (ii) 1992 - the "exception" proving your supposed "rule"; and (iii) 2010 - which Brown lost by about the amount of the Tory lead before he took it on (albeit the financial crisis was a pretty big element, defining his Premiership).
So you invent these political "laws" by spinning the thinnest of evidence. In fact, you're looking at three data points with mixed messages, aren't you?
Churchill also lost in 1945 after 14 years of the Tories in power.
In 1918 the Liberals lost after 12 years in power, even the combined total of Asquith's Liberals and Lloyd George's National Liberals was less than the 379 Tory MPs Bonar Law won. Even if Lloyd George stayed PM it was a Tory dominated government.
In fact you have to go back to Lord Salisbury's win in 1900 after 14 years of Tory rule (BigG remembers it well) to find the last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992
Re: last para, this is factually incorrect (or "wrong" in plain English) as it totally ignores period from 15 August 1892 through 22 June 1895 when Liberal Party governed, first under Gladstone's last administration then under Lord Rosebery's first (and only).
So Lord Salisbury's victory in Khaki Election of 1900 came after just five years in power NOT fourteen.
And thus "last time a PM won a general election after 10 years of their party in power pre Major 1992" was in 1826, when Lord Liverpool secured his 4th consecutive general election triumph, thus continuing Tory rule that had begun in 1807 thru to 1831 general election which was won by Whigs.
You are partly right apologies in that the Liberals were in power after the 1892 election until 1895.
However the Conservatives did still win most seats in the 1892 general election, 314 to 272 for Gladstone's Liberals.
Salisbury did not initially resign and in the end Gladstone formed a minority government propped up by the Irish Nationalists and was succeeded by Lord Rosebery as PM in 1894. Salisbury's Tories then won an overall majority at the 1895 general election.
Just goes to show how difficult it is to win a general election after 10 years of your party in power. In the last 200 years, only John Major and Lord Liverpool have managed it
I'd written a response to your post ponting out your error, but @SeaShantyIrish2 beat me to it.
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Of course that error ironically strengthened my argument.
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
Well, yes - which is why I am baffled that you still tried to qualify your withdrawal. It was an error. An understandable one for somebody who's not an expert, and not even a significant one, but still an error.
So why did you go into a long raas ynt about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
Not an expert of course unlike your pompous self.
You really ought to retract that
Absolutely I will not.
You take your lead from BoJo.
But it was more the first half. He clearly is an expert having written articles and a book on the subject, so whilst you may feel it's your right to call him pompous for being an expert, it isn't your right to tell a lie.
In fairness, he took his lead on this from me. I told him off when having made another silly error like this he refused to admit it and kept claiming he had said something else. Like many people, I'm finding his currently increasingly bizarre attitude towards refusing to admit his mistakes, of which he makes plenty (as we all do, me included) both unedifying and unpleasant. And frustrating, because when he sticks to areas he does know he's actually pretty shrewd.
However, there is a certain irony in being accused of being pompous by somebody who thinks when the facts conflict with his views the facts are wrong.
TBF he did admit the other day that he was wrong in writing something along the lines that the Scottish army joined the Parliamentarian forces in fighting against Cromwell, when I queried that interpretation of history (I forget his exact words).
And he's apologised tonight.
We'll make a scholar of him yet...
Come on you know better than that. Scholars never apologise. The bitterest conflict is over the trivial details...
So you're saying we already have?!
Had. If he’s started apologising then he’s lost to the academic community.
The Speaker needs to haul Boris into Parliament and make him apologise to Keir Starmer over the Jimmy Savile claim. It's such an outrageous claim with absolutely zero evidence (in fact Starmer was someone who helped uncover Savile's horrific legacy of rape and abuse). These kinds of claims need to be corrected and the Speaker should ask Boris to present evidence for his claim or make a retraction and apology.
Of all the stupid things Boris said yesterday in the house, the claim about Starmer was the worst he's come out with in a very long time. It's a complete falsehood, a known complete falsehood and the PM has abused parliamentary privilege to slander Keir Starmer.
I make no argument either way about Boris’ pretty OTT Savile remarks. Nonetheless Team Boris have done their research. This is a meme floating around, and it hovers over Starmer
“Whether it’s fake news or not, Keir Starmer is actually remembered for the one that let Jimmy Savile get away. He was in charge of the CPS at the time. And I still don’t know who he is. He’s not made that impression.”
From an October 2021 focus group
Sounds like you are defending 'Team Boris', as you so obsequiously put it.
And to think I thought you'd discovered a moral backbone these days? Perhaps I was misinformed?
For the avoidance of doubt, i will say, for the 90th time, I think Boris should resign, He’s lied too much and too clearly, on a much too resonant subject - lockdown and the breaking thereof - it is immoral for him to stay where he is.
I say this with sadness because ( yes yes, cue much derision) he had greatness in him, from my perspective. But he just can’t deliver anything now
Now, with that established, we can argue the other points. Politically can he survive? Yes, possibly. Also he could even win in 2024, he has the kind of character than can bounce back.
And the motives of some of his enemies - who would have destroyed democracy with a “people’s vote” (ie cancel the first vote) are pukeworthy. Starmer is one such. Happy to cancel democracy. C*nt
Do you view the five-yearly general elections as cancelling democracy.
Stop being ridiculous. And boring
If you ask a different set of people to vote again about a political question that one set of people has voted on, then there is an argument for saying it is an affront to democracy. But a second vote, hugely impractical as it would have been, would have been perfectly democratic because you would have been asking the same people and they would have been allowed to change their minds or not change their minds.
dipshit
“We’re going to give you a once in a lifetime vote on the most important political subject of our time and whatever you vote YOUR vote will be RESPECTED and we will obey it, and there will be no second EU vote, no rethink, nothing like that, this is IT, the will of the British people will be RESPECTED, once and for all and I solemnly promise you this, it is IN or OUT and I am your prime minister”.. and… “What’s more to prove this is true we will send a leaflet to every single British household swearing this is the case, this is it, this is the vote”
Cue the largest EVER vote in the history of British democracy. The largest EVER. 17.4 MILLION votes in favour of LEAVE
I guess these silly stupid thick racist voters didn’t read the bits in invisible ink at the end saying “oh this is all shit you working class idiots if you vote Leave we will just fanny around for three years then have an election then reverse what you said you racist proles”
I’m sorry, there’s no getting round this. Anyone who wanted a 2nd vote, without enacting the first, ie who wanted to “cancel” or “finesse” democracy” is a Trumpite Capitol-storming Fuck-sucker of the first water, just with a posher accent
The problem I have with that analysis is that if Remain had won 52/48, should UKIP have said 'OK lads, the people have spoken and we're in the EU now.' Should they have moved to support UK membership of the EU out of respect for the referendum?
Or should they have said, 'our voters want us out, and we will fight for a second vote - which we're going to call a peoples' vote - and it's one that we're going to win'?
They'd have said the latter, like the SNP. But no serious country can allow itself to be put at risk from continuous constitutional uncertainty. So, like the SNP, they should rightly be told to take a running jump.
Really? If UKIP had won the 2017 General Election, they should have been prevented from enacting a second referendum?
I don't agree.
If they'd won a General Election on that manifesto then fair enough.
The problem in 2017-19 is that the parties seeking to have a second referendum lost the 2017 election handsomely. Less than 10% of MPs elected in 2017 were done so on a pledge of holding a second referendum.
Grieve, Starmer, Woolaston and the rest who tried to subvert democracy (not the Lib Dems to be fair) were all elected on a platform of saying the 2016 referendum was decisive and that Brexit would happen. Then they worked night and day to prevent it from happening - and to have a second referendum which went against both 2016 and 2017 commitments.
They worked day and night because the British public had not given any party an unambiguous mandate to implement the referendum result. It was a hung parliament and Dominic Grieve et al was returned by his constituents who I'm pretty sure knew his views on the subject.
I'm not sure they did considering in his personal election material in 2017 he said that Brexit would happen. He then voted down every single Brexit option, something not even Ken Clarke did.
His constituents then chose not to return him in 2019 once he outed himself as willing to subvert democracy.
You and Seanie are silly on this one. The 2017 parliament was not bound by the 2015 one. A basic principle of our system of parliamentary sovereignty.
As I said if the 2017 Parliament had a majority pledging a new referendum when they were elected then that is democracy.
But when the likes of Grieve said they would honour the referendum result including in their 2017 election materials then do the opposite then that is undermining and subverting democracy.
It is no different to US Senators attempting to throw out the 2020 election result and replace it with saying Trump is elected President because they can, rather than because that's how people voted.
Just because you can does not always mean you should.
That is a very fair point: there are a number of people who behaved with bad faith, such as Dominic Grieve.
By contrast, the former MP for Eastbourne Stephen Lloyd, was willing to lose the Liberal Democrat whip to maintain the promise he'd made to his electorate to support the referendum result.
Hang on, the Labour manifesto said they would honour the referendum result but also explicitly ruled out a no deal Brexit IIRC.
My ex-colleagues WhatsApp group is agog at the £8.5bn written off on non-delivered or non-compliant PPE.
Remember that PPE contracts were awarded to Tories with no record in procuring PPE without tender or clauses requiring delivery of actual goods fit for purpose. As well as Liar presiding over a pissed-up Downing Street and endlessly lying to parliament, he has also presided over brazen and open corruption.
And certain people still defend *that*
Where exactly would you have bought cheap PPE from in early 2020?
It's also completely fake news.
The majority of the write off is perfectly usable PPE in stockpiles but it's now worth less than when purchased as the price has come back down.
What should have been done? Not pay market rates at the time it was purchased? So have no PPE for those who need it? Or not write off the fact it's not worth as much today, which would be dishonest.
Even if Boris loses a VONC amongst MPs, loyalists say he would fight a subsequent leadership election. If he gets enough support still from loyalist MPs to get to the final two, a la Corbyn 2016 he would then let Tory members decide
Even if Boris loses a VONC amongst MPs, loyalists say he would fight a subsequent leadership election. If he gets enough support still from loyalist MPs to get to the final two, a la Corbyn 2016 he would then let Tory members decide
While we await the election of the final four MPs from Portugal (overseas voters perhaps?), contrasting polls from the same organisation in Germany.
The INSA poll for Bild am Sonntag (fieldwork 24/1 - 28/1) has the SPD on 26%. the Union on 24%, Greens on 16%, FPD and AfD both on 11% and Linke on 6% so support for the three parties in the coalition Government at 53% so very close to the September 2021 election.
For the daily Bild paper, INSA did another poll (fieldwork 28/1 - 31/1) which has the Union on 25% ahead of the SPD on 24%, Greens on 15%, FDP on 12.5%, AfD on 10% and Linke on 6.5%.
So a statistical tie within margin of error and the governing coalition parties close to or just above the 50.2% they achieved in September 2021 so early days but new CDU leader Friedrich Merz hasn't had a huge poll bounce as yet and the Union remains close to the 24.1% poll from last September.
Comments
Sebastian Payne
@SebastianEPayne
·
2h
Could not be more thrilled than @JenWilliamsMEN
is joining the FT as our new Northern England correspondent!
Chuffed that one of the best journalists in the land is joining our merry band - expect top coverage on levelling up, mayors and much more.
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1488551306532954120
Its a bit like American "christians" who have a Bible that consists entirely of Genesis, Leviticus and Revelation.
There seem to be a few people who both bang the Brexit table as being required for parliamentary sovereignty whilst suggesting that parliament not be allowed to be sovereign.
https://youtu.be/1s1UX2ZNsh4
My post would have ended with 'This does of course tend to strengthen your argument, but I will be interested to see if you admit your mistake this time.'
The answer would appear to be 'no.' You said 'party in power.' The Unionists had only been in power for five years in 1900.
Out of curiosity what would it take for you to admit a mistake?
Edit - although I note you do use the word 'apologies' before trying to downplay your error.
Once seen screwing the pooch, that can't be unseen.
Also, Freddie Sayers is a good interviewer.
It was a clear lie.
He can only stay if the convention and ministerial code about lying to the Commons is over and finished.
Tory MPs should bear in mind where that takes the country and our democracy.
They should close their eyes and imagine that Corbyn and his fellow travellers had won a GE and could lie at the despatch box as much as they like.
BT chiefs have opened talks with the Premier League to seek its approval for the sale of BT Sport to another broadcaster, with the streaming service DAZN the favourite to secure the takeover.
The Premier League is BT Sport’s biggest domestic partner in terms of TV rights with a deal stretching until 2025, and it has to give its agreement to a sale. BT also has to obtain approval from Uefa because it has the British rights for the Champions League and Europa League.
Discovery, the US media giant, is also interested in acquiring BT Sport or forming a joint venture and it is understood to remain in the running.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dazn-closing-on-deal-to-buy-bt-sport-and-its-premier-league-rights-qz68h6qsq
He won't and I equally doubt MexicanPete will withdraw his support for them. That's the level this country has sunk to. People think it's fine to lie.
https://news.sky.com/story/jimmy-saviles-victims-call-on-boris-johnson-to-withdraw-sir-keir-starmer-accusations-12530517
I can see his giant head filling with his original and damning statement (not damning and not original) resonating through time as the moment Boris fell.
He pictured endless replays on the news and it being replayed on BBC parliament in 30 years time.
Unfortunately he wasn’t the roaring lion that he thought he was, not even the SAS assassin but a dead sheep that was full of gas that deflated over two weeks with only the farmer and hill walkers noticing and remembering the noise.
It needs someone nobody would expect to deliver the coup de grace rather than the ineffectual Coup de Trump.
However, one point does quite alarm me. Is it true the Met has said they will not name any individuals who are fined over lockdown breaches in this case? Not only does that run counter to the police's previous practice where they've named several people even when they had been cleared, but this was on public property. Don't we as the public have a right to know who's been breaking laws in our houses?
Liverpool and Major being the only PMs in the last 200 years ever to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power. Indeed Major being the only PM to have won a general election after 10 years of their party in power since the 1832 Reform Act
A fish rots from the head down.
So why did you go into a long rant about the party strengths in 1892 instead of just admitting it?
(Edit - incidentally the Tories were second to the Liberals in 1892, by one seat. They held an overall lead because the 45 Liberal Unionists, still a separate party until 1912, had said they would continue to offer support to Salisbury ahead of Gladstone.)
The government chose the latter. It seems many of the people who were screaming about the lack of PPE in April/May 2020 are now screeching about its cost.
That is not to excuse fraud where it has happened, but the idea that the cost of PPE was not going to be extortionate during that period is fanciful. The government did everything it could to get the PPE kit - remember somebody from Labour standing up and showing a list of 'suppliers' (some bogus) that they claimed had not been contacted?
"The driver who mowed down and killed a man who had just stabbed his ex-partner to death in the street in Maida Vale has been released without charge. The Metropolitan Police said that investigators had reviewed the law around self-defence and defence of another, and now considered the 26-year-old "a vital witness" rather than a suspect."
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/driver-ran-down-leon-mccaskre-after-killed-yasmin-chkaifi-released-by-met-police-b980044.html
Not sure about the public property bit though. These are Crown properties aren't they?
On your second paragraph, no. The official owner is the Secretary of State concerned:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/519016/response/1246876/attach/3/FOI326844 REPLY.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1
Iain Martin
@iainmartin1
Johnson taking mad risk humiliating chief whip who could do him in. (The Hound on Reaction
@reactionlife
)
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1488576446075490307
I am as fervent as anyone except possibly @Cyclefree in my disdain for the police, but I think they did this one the right way round.
So Gove is the owner.
As you full know the Liberal Unionists fully backed Salisbury's Conservatives in 1892. Gladstone's Liberals only got into power because they were equally supported by the Irish Nationalists
Appropriate though given he apparently knows how to throw a really amazing party.
Of course, Keir Starmer's Labour start from a long way further back than Tony Blair's Labour and the tories the converse.
So I'm interested in betting on actual seat gains and losses.
1997 Labour Increased 145
Tories decreased 178
2024 The latest BritainElects prediction is:
Labour increase 110
Tories decrease 126
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1488537754598260737
What made things even worse for the tories was that in 1997 the LibDems gained 26 seats to be on 46, whereas Britain Elects is predicting a gain of 9 to reach 20 total.
On that amazing day Tony Blair's Labour polled 43% just below the level of today's ComRes for Labour on 44%.
If we elect a new government in 2024 on a manifesto to rejoin, or Closer alighnment then so be it.
ForgottenGenius
@ExStrategist
·
23m
Boris Johnson vs Jeremy Corbyn in 2019 was the worst national choice ever offered in an election.
The only worst head to head I can think of was John McDonnell vs Terry Dicks in Hayes and Harlington 1992, which was essentially the IRA vs the BNP.
https://mobile.twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1488512334960238593
This is a worry: who decides that Boris lied, if he doesn't admit it? Speaker can say if lie, then out of order, but can he adjudicate on the substantive point?
So your point there isn't correct either. I know Wiki says different but as so often Wiki is wrong.
Equally, that should strengthen your case. So why are you continuing to wriggle?
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1488594714899144718?s=20&t=F5MeBLxuJfxsD7jkw6tCHQ
Or did May smear Corbyn as a spy? I missed that.
He said I had no brain the other night, if you insult me I will insult back.
There are also far worse insults used by some on here than that
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/dominic-cummings-boris-johnson-partygate-photographs_uk_61f97ac6e4b04f9a12c33b10
'A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent Leadership election.'
Schedule 2, rule 2, page 18. Put in to stop anyone else doing a Major.
That is also held to apply to leaders removed by a VONC as Iain Duncan Smith found out.
Of course, he would face utter humiliation if he did, a la Thatcher, so it would be funny to watch, but it can't happen.
Opinium found 66% of Tory members still wanted Boris to stay PM and party leader last month
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1469370138441003010?s=20&t=F5MeBLxuJfxsD7jkw6tCHQ
But it was more the first half. He clearly is an expert having written articles and a book on the subject, so whilst you may feel it's your right to call him pompous for being an expert, it isn't your right to tell a lie.
Which seems to leave open the possibility that everyone involved but him gets fined, on the basis that (a) it's his house, and (b) he didn't organise any of the parties.
Which as I have pointed out was in fact incorrect. In fact, on a careful check the Conservatives won 269 seats to 272 Liberals, a gap of three not one as I thought.
So they were not the largest party.
The Irish Nationalists of course invariably supported the Liberals anyway in the hope of getting a Dublin Parliament. Even from 1906 to 1910 when the Liberals had 242 more seats than the Unionists. Just as the Liberal Unionists backed the Tories for the opposite reason. So it's a bit misleading of Wiki to classify the parties that way.
I don't get the feeling whoever did the entries for the nineteenth century really knew what they were doing (they keep lumping the Radicals and Peelites in with the Whig totals from 1846 to 1859, for example). It's on my list of things to correct when I ever have a moment.
Plenty of jobs ask you - have you ever been arrested?
I had this argument with a policeman once, socially. It was curious how he couldn't grasp the idea that you could make provision for all the rights stuff, without an arrest. It would be perfectly possible to write a law - something like - "You subject to a police enquiry" - all the rights ensue when they announce that, formally.
I saw it as very dangerous for Starmer because there is now a subliminal connection between Starmer and Savile. It is straight out of the Crosby playbook. I also thought Johnson's drug use allegations against the Opposition front bench were dangerous. He wouldn't make the accusations outside Parliament, but the words just trip off his tongue.
EXCL: Rishi Sunak sat in a packed Commons on Monday despite a close family member testing positive for Covid - and against official guidance.
Treasury insiders denied the PM had set a precedent by holing up in Downing Street when his daughter had Covid.
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1488581553642954753
However, there is a certain irony in being accused of being pompous by somebody who thinks when the facts conflict with his views the facts are wrong.
And a thesis is a book by any standard. So Ydoethur has two to his credit (or perhaps two editions of the same book).
But the doctorate wasn't from Oxford, of course, it was from a much better uni
Edit - one reason I want to quit teaching or at least reduce my hours is I want more time to write.
Interesting that the FT wants to pass the old slide rule over the promises and fantasies that are Johnson's levelling up.
Perhaps they think the failure to deliver will determine the next GE?
We'll make a scholar of him yet...
But when the likes of Grieve said they would honour the referendum result including in their 2017 election materials then do the opposite then that is undermining and subverting democracy.
It is no different to US Senators attempting to throw out the 2020 election result and replace it with saying Trump is elected President because they can, rather than because that's how people voted.
Just because you can does not always mean you should.
Robert Peston
@Peston
·
1h
The argument from some Tory MPs - @markjenkinsonmp just now on
@itvnews
- that breaching Covid rules is equivalent to parking on a double yellow line is odd. They can’t think the threat to life from anti-social parking is the same as failing to limit the spread of a virus…
Robert Peston
@Peston
that killed more than 150,000
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1488582435910602755
Also AUIUI employers shouldn't be asking if you have ever been arrested, only if you've ever been convicted, and then only for specific offences in a particular timeframe for certain jobs.
By contrast, the former MP for Eastbourne Stephen Lloyd, was willing to lose the Liberal Democrat whip to maintain the promise he'd made to his electorate to support the referendum result.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/01/eight-ways-sue-grays-partygate-report-makes-things-worse-boris/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1643741039-2
The majority of the write off is perfectly usable PPE in stockpiles but it's now worth less than when purchased as the price has come back down.
What should have been done? Not pay market rates at the time it was purchased? So have no PPE for those who need it? Or not write off the fact it's not worth as much today, which would be dishonest.
It's possible he'll just go floppy and defeated, but I'm expecting something ugly to get rid of him.
Sorry, not sorry...
While we await the election of the final four MPs from Portugal (overseas voters perhaps?), contrasting polls from the same organisation in Germany.
The INSA poll for Bild am Sonntag (fieldwork 24/1 - 28/1) has the SPD on 26%. the Union on 24%, Greens on 16%, FPD and AfD both on 11% and Linke on 6% so support for the three parties in the coalition Government at 53% so very close to the September 2021 election.
For the daily Bild paper, INSA did another poll (fieldwork 28/1 - 31/1) which has the Union on 25% ahead of the SPD on 24%, Greens on 15%, FDP on 12.5%, AfD on 10% and Linke on 6.5%.
So a statistical tie within margin of error and the governing coalition parties close to or just above the 50.2% they achieved in September 2021 so early days but new CDU leader Friedrich Merz hasn't had a huge poll bounce as yet and the Union remains close to the 24.1% poll from last September.
https://twitter.com/Wills_Robinson/status/1488601774218952705
Note that the Salville lie was basically something circulating on alt-right facebook until Johnson took hold of it.
https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status/1488587034591744006