Message from No10: 'So our new boss is a pro-Remain lobbyist who's said the PM is 'sexually incontinent', 'hugely divisive', 'destructive', 'dragging the country down', & picked 'wrong side' in referendum' GREAT 🤡' #RegimeChange https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1490029370475429889
Descending from the important questions in the Header to the nakedly partisan - apols - I wonder how a Sunak/Starmer match-up would play to the country? I haven't quite worked myself out a take on this yet. I do probably need to since he looks nailed on if and when 'it' finally happens.
Starmer's only real appeal is that he is the boring-but-competent one against the charismatic but flawed partygate buffoonery of Boris (being generous to Boris there).
Sunak would essentially occupy the same boring-but-competent territory. Which is bad for Starmer.
Except that one has a modicum of working class background and a trusted profession.
The other is the richest person in Parliament and was a banker. Replace the first letter & you have how most people view them.
Starmer also attended a private school and Oxford for postgraduate studies after Leeds. He was also a lawyer who are almost as unloved as bankers.
I thought Starmer's school went private whilst he was there.
Descending from the important questions in the Header to the nakedly partisan - apols - I wonder how a Sunak/Starmer match-up would play to the country? I haven't quite worked myself out a take on this yet. I do probably need to since he looks nailed on if and when 'it' finally happens.
Starmer's only real appeal is that he is the boring-but-competent one against the charismatic but flawed partygate buffoonery of Boris (being generous to Boris there).
Sunak would essentially occupy the same boring-but-competent territory. Which is bad for Starmer.
Except that one has a modicum of working class background and a trusted profession.
The other is the richest person in Parliament and was a banker. Replace the first letter & you have how most people view them.
Starmer also attended a private school and Oxford for postgraduate studies after Leeds. He was also a lawyer who are almost as unloved as bankers.
I thought Starmer's school went private whilst he was there.
Descending from the important questions in the Header to the nakedly partisan - apols - I wonder how a Sunak/Starmer match-up would play to the country? I haven't quite worked myself out a take on this yet. I do probably need to since he looks nailed on if and when 'it' finally happens.
Starmer's only real appeal is that he is the boring-but-competent one against the charismatic but flawed partygate buffoonery of Boris (being generous to Boris there).
Sunak would essentially occupy the same boring-but-competent territory. Which is bad for Starmer.
Except that one has a modicum of working class background and a trusted profession.
The other is the richest person in Parliament and was a banker. Replace the first letter & you have how most people view them.
Starmer also attended a private school and Oxford for postgraduate studies after Leeds. He was also a lawyer who are almost as unloved as bankers.
I thought Starmer's school went private whilst he was there.
Sunak could be one of 3 Tory leadership hopefuls. At best he would be the next John Major, who narrowly wins another term for the Tories after ten years in power. Alternatively he could be the next Douglas Home, who narrowly lost a general election after ten years in power but made it closer than expected so Wilson only got a majority of 4. At worst he would be the next David Miliband or Michael Portillo and fail to even become leader, let alone win a general election.
If Sunak wants to be the first, like Major he needs to connect with the average voter. That means focusing on low taxes but also a commitment to public services and while opposed to socialism not getting too close to the laissez faire wing of the City and large corporations and the libertarian wing of the Tory right.
Now Brexit has got done austerity and deregulation will not keep the redwall. While any form of wealth tax would be as disastrous as May's dementia tax proved with Tory leaning swing voters.
I also disagree all alternatives to Boris would be better. Other than maybe Sunak most would probably poll worse than Boris with the public in the end
A new John Major is the best you now have to hope for, pal.
Fair enough but when have Labour ever won a fourth or fifth consecutive general election? Never. The best they managed was 3 consecutive general election wins under Blair
The last time a political party won a fifth consecutive general election was 1826. The only time since then a party has even won four on the spin was 1992.
So it's not that surprising.
Yes and if the Tories win the next general election under Sunak or Boris or whoever they will match Lord Liverpool's record set in 1826 of a remarkable 5 consecutive terms in power.
Major the only other party leader to win a general election after ten years of their party in power
Ooooh you are a slippery slippery customer (how very tory). You have just moved your goalposts from 'win' to 'consecutive power'. Why?
Because you know full well that Theresa May did not win in 2017 and nor, for that matter, did David Cameron in 2010.
I still don't think the British public will stomach a multi-millionare banker, hedge fund manager especially in the dark financial days ahead.
The tory party? That's a different story.
Sunak has a net worth of £200 million and is son in law of a billionaire. He would be the richest PM in the modern era and also while not as posh as Home or Cameron, being Winchester and Oxford educated still pretty posh himself
I don’t care how rich someone is. I do care about overall competence and image
On the other hand, he will be able to pay for his own refurbishing of Downing Street without the helping hand of a donor.....
Exactly. And is it totally fanciful to imagine that the failure to give the go ahead to tidal lagoons might just have something to do with eventual generosity that may occur (no brown envelopes, all above board) from competing energy concerns? Sunak has 200 million reasons not to have to grub around for post-retirement speaking engagements the way that successive PMs have before him have done.
Message from No10: 'So our new boss is a pro-Remain lobbyist who's said the PM is 'sexually incontinent', 'hugely divisive', 'destructive', 'dragging the country down', & picked 'wrong side' in referendum' GREAT 🤡' #RegimeChange https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1490029370475429889
Descending from the important questions in the Header to the nakedly partisan - apols - I wonder how a Sunak/Starmer match-up would play to the country? I haven't quite worked myself out a take on this yet. I do probably need to since he looks nailed on if and when 'it' finally happens.
Starmer's only real appeal is that he is the boring-but-competent one against the charismatic but flawed partygate buffoonery of Boris (being generous to Boris there).
Sunak would essentially occupy the same boring-but-competent territory. Which is bad for Starmer.
Except that one has a modicum of working class background and a trusted profession.
The other is the richest person in Parliament and was a banker. Replace the first letter & you have how most people view them.
lawyer who are almost as unloved as bankers.
Utterly untrue as Mike Smithson demonstrated the other day.
IPSOS MORI (One of your two permitted pollsters):
Other professions trusted by more than half of the public include museum curators, the police, lawyers, civil servants, the ordinary man/woman on the street and clergy/priests. Professions with negative net trust ratings include bankers, local councillors, business leaders, professional footballers, estate agents and journalists.
"If Old Labour had bulldozed Eton in the Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss.
Clem bottled it.
In truth, I'm not a radical - I'm no more in favour of outlawing private schooling as I am scrapping private healthcare - but when one contemplates the calamitous careers of Johnson and Cameron it does give one pause for thought as to whether slipping a few extra aces into the hands of entitled chancers from the serried ranks of England's imbecilic upper class is really such a good idea...
I still don't think the British public will stomach a multi-millionare banker, hedge fund manager especially in the dark financial days ahead.
The tory party? That's a different story.
Sunak has a net worth of £200 million and is son in law of a billionaire. He would be the richest PM in the modern era and also while not as posh as Home or Cameron, being Winchester and Oxford educated still pretty posh himself
I don’t care how rich someone is. I do care about overall competence and image
On the other hand, he will be able to pay for his own refurbishing of Downing Street without the helping hand of a donor.....
Exactly. And is it totally fanciful to imagine that the failure to give the go ahead to tidal lagoons might just have something to do with eventual generosity that may occur (no brown envelopes, all above board) from competing energy concerns? Sunak has 200 million reasons not to have to grub around for post-retirement speaking engagements the way that successive PMs have before him have done.
Speaking engagements is a relatively harmless way of earning money post PMship. If Goldman Sachs want to pay 6 figures to May to speak for an hour on some random topic for some reason, well, the transaction is not that dodgy compared to what it could have been.
Downing Street believes Johnson is in “the danger zone” and could well face a vote of confidence in the next fortnight. Some 54 MPs need to write to Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers, to trigger a vote.
Johnson’s shadow whipping operation believes that a minimum of 35 MPs have submitted their letters, though they think it is likely to be about 45, nine short of the target. Some MPs believe the figure could already be more than 50.
Downing Street believes Johnson is in “the danger zone” and could well face a vote of confidence in the next fortnight. Some 54 MPs need to write to Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee of backbenchers, to trigger a vote.
Johnson’s shadow whipping operation believes that a minimum of 35 MPs have submitted their letters, though they think it is likely to be about 45, nine short of the target. Some MPs believe the figure could already be more than 50.
A small reshuffle is likely to follow, in which Mark Spencer could be replaced as chief whip. Adams or Chris Pincher, who led the operation to keep support from MPs are tipped — but one source even suggested Johnson thinks Priti Patel’s “no nonsense” approach might be better suited to the job than home secretary.
I suppose the question about Rishi Sunak is whether it's to be a known or an unknown quantity. John Major, for all he had been FS and was CoE, was a largely unknown figure in the autumn of 1990. Admittedly, when he started t get some media attention, the public liked what they saw and that prevented Michael Heseltine from winning the leadership election.
Sunak is a far more "known" quantity whether you think of him as "Dishy Rishi" or not. I'm to be convinced he can empathise with the majority of people and especially those finding it hard going economically and it remains to be seen how comfortable he will be in situations where he's not dealing with a room full of loyal Conservatives.
From where I sit, he comes over as someone who has not known failure - he seems to have been successful in everything he has done so far - and I just think the experience of failure or disappointment develops you as a person and an individual. That's just my observation.
@HYUFD offers a policy programme for him which has few surprises from a Conservative perspective. As others will say, he'll need to be seen to be running a Government and an economic policy that isn't wholly subservient to the Laffer Curve or to the financial sector. We are seeing, I think, the consequences of allowing the post-pandemic demand surge to overheat the economy.
We can't go on with what I would term the economics of Mercury - " we want it all and we want it now".
Descending from the important questions in the Header to the nakedly partisan - apols - I wonder how a Sunak/Starmer match-up would play to the country? I haven't quite worked myself out a take on this yet. I do probably need to since he looks nailed on if and when 'it' finally happens.
Starmer's only real appeal is that he is the boring-but-competent one against the charismatic but flawed partygate buffoonery of Boris (being generous to Boris there).
Sunak would essentially occupy the same boring-but-competent territory. Which is bad for Starmer.
Except that one has a modicum of working class background and a trusted profession.
The other is the richest person in Parliament and was a banker. Replace the first letter & you have how most people view them.
lawyer who are almost as unloved as bankers.
Utterly untrue as Mike Smithson demonstrated the other day.
IPSOS MORI (One of your two permitted pollsters):
Other professions trusted by more than half of the public include museum curators, the police, lawyers, civil servants, the ordinary man/woman on the street and clergy/priests. Professions with negative net trust ratings include bankers, local councillors, business leaders, professional footballers, estate agents and journalists.
If his big reset does not work, Johnson is understood to have been exploring opportunities in the United States, which would allow him to make $250,000 per speech when he leaves office. His father, Stanley, was recently overheard in the Beefsteak Club, a gentlemen’s dining club in central London, bemoaning at some length his son’s money worries.
Steve Barclay has been appointed the new Downing Street chief of staff. He will remain a minister and create a new Office of the Prime Minister across No 10 and the Cabinet Office, where he is now based.
Guto Harri, Boris Johnson’s former spindoctor in City Hall is BACK. He is the new No 10 director of communications after the resignation of Jack Doyle last week. Johnson putting his old gang back together
"If Old Labour had bulldozed Eton in the Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss.
"If Old Labour had not bulldozed most of the Grammar schools in the Sixties and Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools I presume
No, everyone. The presence of those from the working class in positions of power helps everyone.
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools
The idea is that more policies (and I guess commercial decisions) benefitting 'the many not the few' would come from the presence of grammar school alumni in elite positions. You may disagree that that has been the practical outcome, but as a concept it's not too difficult to understand why it would benefit a wider group than those who actually went to grammar schools.
"If Old Labour had bulldozed Eton in the Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss.
Clem bottled it.
In truth, I'm not a radical - I'm no more in favour of outlawing private schooling as I am scrapping private healthcare - but when one contemplates the calamitous careers of Johnson and Cameron it does give one pause for thought as to whether slipping a few extra aces into the hands of entitled chancers from the serried ranks of England's imbecilic upper class is really such a good idea...
Attlee went to private school too, as did Blair, as did Starmer.
Hague, Ed Miliband, Brown, Heath and Corbyn went to state schools for secondary education
In terms of who Labour should fear as Tory leader, I actually think Labour would find it much tougher against Mordaunt than Sunak. Has a more appealing backstory than Sunak, and has solid Brexit credentials while also having a brain. I'd then rank Sunak behind her, followed by Hunt. I'd be very confident of Labour winning a majority if Truss was leader, and it would be a landslide if it was Gove or Patel.
I still don't think the British public will stomach a multi-millionare banker, hedge fund manager especially in the dark financial days ahead.
The tory party? That's a different story.
Sunak has a net worth of £200 million and is son in law of a billionaire. He would be the richest PM in the modern era and also while not as posh as Home or Cameron, being Winchester and Oxford educated still pretty posh himself
I don’t care how rich someone is. I do care about overall competence and image
On the other hand, he will be able to pay for his own refurbishing of Downing Street without the helping hand of a donor.....
Exactly. And is it totally fanciful to imagine that the failure to give the go ahead to tidal lagoons might just have something to do with eventual generosity that may occur (no brown envelopes, all above board) from competing energy concerns? Sunak has 200 million reasons not to have to grub around for post-retirement speaking engagements the way that successive PMs have before him have done.
Speaking engagements is a relatively harmless way of earning money post PMship. If Goldman Sachs want to pay 6 figures to May to speak for an hour on some random topic for some reason, well, the transaction is not that dodgy compared to what it could have been.
Post PMship isn't the concern. The concern is the impact that the expectation of such reward may have on decisions taken during PMship.
"If Old Labour had bulldozed Eton in the Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss.
Clem bottled it.
In truth, I'm not a radical - I'm no more in favour of outlawing private schooling as I am scrapping private healthcare - but when one contemplates the calamitous careers of Johnson and Cameron it does give one pause for thought as to whether slipping a few extra aces into the hands of entitled chancers from the serried ranks of England's imbecilic upper class is really such a good idea...
Attlee went to private school too, as did Blair, as did Starmer.
Hague, Ed Miliband, Brown, Heath and Corbyn went to state schools for secondary education
Descending from the important questions in the Header to the nakedly partisan - apols - I wonder how a Sunak/Starmer match-up would play to the country? I haven't quite worked myself out a take on this yet. I do probably need to since he looks nailed on if and when 'it' finally happens.
Starmer's only real appeal is that he is the boring-but-competent one against the charismatic but flawed partygate buffoonery of Boris (being generous to Boris there).
Sunak would essentially occupy the same boring-but-competent territory. Which is bad for Starmer.
Except that one has a modicum of working class background and a trusted profession.
The other is the richest person in Parliament and was a banker. Replace the first letter & you have how most people view them.
Sshh. Wait until he is wearing the clown’s big shoes.
"If Old Labour had bulldozed Eton in the Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss.
"If Old Labour had not bulldozed most of the Grammar schools in the Sixties and Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss
Selective education of the kind to which you refer entails branding most schoolkids as failures and chucking them on the scrapheap at the age of eleven. This is not a state of affairs to be aspired to.
counting down to the moment when the SNP try to create a grievance out of the realisation that, unlike expats, people in an independent Scotland wouldn’t get to vote in UK elections
Sunak could be one of 3 Tory leadership hopefuls. At best he would be the next John Major, who narrowly wins another term for the Tories after ten years in power. Alternatively he could be the next Douglas Home, who narrowly lost a general election after ten years in power but made it closer than expected so Wilson only got a majority of 4. At worst he would be the next David Miliband or Michael Portillo and fail to even become leader, let alone win a general election.
If Sunak wants to be the first, like Major he needs to connect with the average voter. That means focusing on low taxes but also a commitment to public services and while opposed to socialism not getting too close to the laissez faire wing of the City and large corporations and the libertarian wing of the Tory right.
Now Brexit has got done austerity and deregulation will not keep the redwall. While any form of wealth tax would be as disastrous as May's dementia tax proved with Tory leaning swing voters.
I also disagree all alternatives to Boris would be better. Other than maybe Sunak most would probably poll worse than Boris with the public in the end
A new John Major is the best you now have to hope for, pal.
Fair enough but when have Labour ever won a fourth or fifth consecutive general election? Never. The best they managed was 3 consecutive general election wins under Blair
If the great HY is now falling back on consoling himself with past glories, we truly are approaching the end of days…
How long do you think your lot will be in opposition?
"If Old Labour had bulldozed Eton in the Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss.
"If Old Labour had not bulldozed most of the Grammar schools in the Sixties and Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools I presume
No, everyone. The presence of those from the working class in positions of power helps everyone.
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools
The idea is that more policies (and I guess commercial decisions) benefitting 'the many not the few' would come from the presence of grammar school alumni in elite positions. You may disagree that that has been the practical outcome, but as a concept it's not too difficult to understand why it would benefit a wider group than those who actually went to grammar schools.
"Sorry you didn't get into a grammar and have to rot in a secondary modern but hey, George next door may become a banker so chin up."
Sunak could be one of 3 Tory leadership hopefuls. At best he would be the next John Major, who narrowly wins another term for the Tories after ten years in power. Alternatively he could be the next Douglas Home, who narrowly lost a general election after ten years in power but made it closer than expected so Wilson only got a majority of 4. At worst he would be the next David Miliband or Michael Portillo and fail to even become leader, let alone win a general election.
If Sunak wants to be the first, like Major he needs to connect with the average voter. That means focusing on low taxes but also a commitment to public services and while opposed to socialism not getting too close to the laissez faire wing of the City and large corporations and the libertarian wing of the Tory right.
Now Brexit has got done austerity and deregulation will not keep the redwall. While any form of wealth tax would be as disastrous as May's dementia tax proved with Tory leaning swing voters.
I also disagree all alternatives to Boris would be better. Other than maybe Sunak most would probably poll worse than Boris with the public in the end
A new John Major is the best you now have to hope for, pal.
Fair enough but when have Labour ever won a fourth or fifth consecutive general election? Never. The best they managed was 3 consecutive general election wins under Blair
If the great HY is now falling back on consoling himself with past glories, we truly are approaching the end of days…
How long do you think your lot will be in opposition?
In terms of who Labour should fear as Tory leader, I actually think Labour would find it much tougher against Mordaunt than Sunak.
Totally agree.
She's great. Powerful back story. Could win the centre, where it matters most.
Just a shame that she not only participated in the risible ‘Leadsom for Leader’ march, but was actually the bright spark who came up with the idea in the first place:
"If Old Labour had bulldozed Eton in the Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss.
"If Old Labour had not bulldozed most of the Grammar schools in the Sixties and Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools I presume
No, everyone. The presence of those from the working class in positions of power helps everyone.
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools
Yep appalling institutions
So appalling they produced the highest number of non privately educated people in our top professions, yes even judges and lawyers had plenty of grammar school alumni. More so than the number who now come from comprehensives
Descending from the important questions in the Header to the nakedly partisan - apols - I wonder how a Sunak/Starmer match-up would play to the country? I haven't quite worked myself out a take on this yet. I do probably need to since he looks nailed on if and when 'it' finally happens.
Starmer's only real appeal is that he is the boring-but-competent one against the charismatic but flawed partygate buffoonery of Boris (being generous to Boris there).
Sunak would essentially occupy the same boring-but-competent territory. Which is bad for Starmer.
Except that one has a modicum of working class background and a trusted profession.
The other is the richest person in Parliament and was a banker. Replace the first letter & you have how most people view them.
lawyer who are almost as unloved as bankers.
Utterly untrue as Mike Smithson demonstrated the other day.
IPSOS MORI (One of your two permitted pollsters):
Other professions trusted by more than half of the public include museum curators, the police, lawyers, civil servants, the ordinary man/woman on the street and clergy/priests. Professions with negative net trust ratings include bankers, local councillors, business leaders, professional footballers, estate agents and journalists.
"If Old Labour had bulldozed Eton in the Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss.
"If Old Labour had not bulldozed most of the Grammar schools in the Sixties and Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools I presume
No, everyone. The presence of those from the working class in positions of power helps everyone.
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools
Yep appalling institutions
So appalling they produced the highest number of non privately educated people products in our top professions, yes even judges and lawyers had plenty of grammar school alumni. More so than the number who now come from comprehensives
If you got rid of private schools and grammar schools then 100% of our PMs, people in top professions and judges and lawyers would be from comprehensives. Explain that one.
Is Steve Barclay a part time chief of staff because this Government’s only a part time Government.
Or is Steve looking at George “10 jobs” Osbourne and seeing how far he can push things.
He's an MP so any other job he takes on has to be part time. We accept part time cabinet ministers as the norm, as they all try to hold down MP jobs as well.
counting down to the moment when the SNP try to create a grievance out of the realisation that, unlike expats, people in an independent Scotland wouldn’t get to vote in UK elections
So is Cyclefree simultaneously asking for financial help re energy costs to be concentrated on the poorest while also asking for the VAT reduction which would also benefit the richest ?
Is Steve Barclay a part time chief of staff because this Government’s only a part time Government.
Or is Steve looking at George “10 jobs” Osbourne and seeing how far he can push things.
He's an MP so any other job he takes on has to be part time. We accept part time cabinet ministers as the norm, as they all try to hold down MP jobs as well.
Sunak could be one of 3 Tory leadership hopefuls. At best he would be the next John Major, who narrowly wins another term for the Tories after ten years in power. Alternatively he could be the next Douglas Home, who narrowly lost a general election after ten years in power but made it closer than expected so Wilson only got a majority of 4. At worst he would be the next David Miliband or Michael Portillo and fail to even become leader, let alone win a general election.
If Sunak wants to be the first, like Major he needs to connect with the average voter. That means focusing on low taxes but also a commitment to public services and while opposed to socialism not getting too close to the laissez faire wing of the City and large corporations and the libertarian wing of the Tory right.
Now Brexit has got done austerity and deregulation will not keep the redwall. While any form of wealth tax would be as disastrous as May's dementia tax proved with Tory leaning swing voters.
I also disagree all alternatives to Boris would be better. Other than maybe Sunak most would probably poll worse than Boris with the public in the end
A new John Major is the best you now have to hope for, pal.
Fair enough but when have Labour ever won a fourth or fifth consecutive general election? Never. The best they managed was 3 consecutive general election wins under Blair
If the great HY is now falling back on consoling himself with past glories, we truly are approaching the end of days…
How long do you think your lot will be in opposition?
Probably less long than the 18 years Labour spent in opposition from 1979 to 1997 or even the 12 years Labour have already spent in opposition since 2010.
The longest we were out of power was the 13 years of New Labour and whatever else Starmer is he is no Blair, even if he does win
Sunak could be one of 3 Tory leadership hopefuls. At best he would be the next John Major, who narrowly wins another term for the Tories after ten years in power. Alternatively he could be the next Douglas Home, who narrowly lost a general election after ten years in power but made it closer than expected so Wilson only got a majority of 4. At worst he would be the next David Miliband or Michael Portillo and fail to even become leader, let alone win a general election.
If Sunak wants to be the first, like Major he needs to connect with the average voter. That means focusing on low taxes but also a commitment to public services and while opposed to socialism not getting too close to the laissez faire wing of the City and large corporations and the libertarian wing of the Tory right.
Now Brexit has got done austerity and deregulation will not keep the redwall. While any form of wealth tax would be as disastrous as May's dementia tax proved with Tory leaning swing voters.
I also disagree all alternatives to Boris would be better. Other than maybe Sunak most would probably poll worse than Boris with the public in the end
A new John Major is the best you now have to hope for, pal.
Fair enough but when have Labour ever won a fourth or fifth consecutive general election? Never. The best they managed was 3 consecutive general election wins under Blair
If the great HY is now falling back on consoling himself with past glories, we truly are approaching the end of days…
How long do you think your lot will be in opposition?
Probably less long than the 18 years Labour spent in opposition from 1979 to 1997 or even 12 years Labour have already spent in opposition since 2010
I suppose the question about Rishi Sunak is whether it's to be a known or an unknown quantity. John Major, for all he had been FS and was CoE, was a largely unknown figure in the autumn of 1990. Admittedly, when he started t get some media attention, the public liked what they saw and that prevented Michael Heseltine from winning the leadership election.
Sunak is a far more "known" quantity whether you think of him as "Dishy Rishi" or not. I'm to be convinced he can empathise with the majority of people and especially those finding it hard going economically and it remains to be seen how comfortable he will be in situations where he's not dealing with a room full of loyal Conservatives.
From where I sit, he comes over as someone who has not known failure - he seems to have been successful in everything he has done so far - and I just think the experience of failure or disappointment develops you as a person and an individual. That's just my observation.
@HYUFD offers a policy programme for him which has few surprises from a Conservative perspective. As others will say, he'll need to be seen to be running a Government and an economic policy that isn't wholly subservient to the Laffer Curve or to the financial sector. We are seeing, I think, the consequences of allowing the post-pandemic demand surge to overheat the economy.
We can't go on with what I would term the economics of Mercury - " we want it all and we want it now".
The other thing is that I think his government CV has been Local Government (telling councils they can't have money to spend), Chief Sec (telling everyone they can't have money to spend) and now Chancellor. I don't think he's ever had a role where he's been on the other side of the table- arguing for a bit of government spending because it's needed.
That would be a problem for any potential PM, but for one with (let's face it) as guilded a career as Rishi it's doubly so. For all his charm, he isn't new, improved John Major.
And financially, the next 2 years are set to be rubbish for a lot of people.
counting down to the moment when the SNP try to create a grievance out of the realisation that, unlike expats, people in an independent Scotland wouldn’t get to vote in UK elections
Sunak could be one of 3 Tory leadership hopefuls. At best he would be the next John Major, who narrowly wins another term for the Tories after ten years in power. Alternatively he could be the next Douglas Home, who narrowly lost a general election after ten years in power but made it closer than expected so Wilson only got a majority of 4. At worst he would be the next David Miliband or Michael Portillo and fail to even become leader, let alone win a general election.
If Sunak wants to be the first, like Major he needs to connect with the average voter. That means focusing on low taxes but also a commitment to public services and while opposed to socialism not getting too close to the laissez faire wing of the City and large corporations and the libertarian wing of the Tory right.
Now Brexit has got done austerity and deregulation will not keep the redwall. While any form of wealth tax would be as disastrous as May's dementia tax proved with Tory leaning swing voters.
I also disagree all alternatives to Boris would be better. Other than maybe Sunak most would probably poll worse than Boris with the public in the end
A new John Major is the best you now have to hope for, pal.
Fair enough but when have Labour ever won a fourth or fifth consecutive general election? Never. The best they managed was 3 consecutive general election wins under Blair
The last time a political party won a fifth consecutive general election was 1826. The only time since then a party has even won four on the spin was 1992.
So it's not that surprising.
Yes and if the Tories win the next general election under Sunak or Boris or whoever they will match Lord Liverpool's record set in 1826 of a remarkable 5 consecutive terms in power.
Major the only other party leader to win a general election after ten years of their party in power
Tory streak in early 1800s lasted over 6 general elections (1807, 1812, 1818, 1820, 1826, 1830) under as many PMs (Portland, Percival, Liverpool, Canning, Goderich, Wellington) ending with Whig win in 1831.
Close to a quarter century of tremendous challenges, triumphs, changes and turmoil for UK. Tory dominance was product in good measure of successes achieved (or perceived) in office, but also thanks to opposition disarray amplified by government repression. And from first to last, top Tories within & without the cabinet fought like cats in a bag, most famous example being rivalry Castlereagh v. Canning.
Descending from the important questions in the Header to the nakedly partisan - apols - I wonder how a Sunak/Starmer match-up would play to the country? I haven't quite worked myself out a take on this yet. I do probably need to since he looks nailed on if and when 'it' finally happens.
Starmer's only real appeal is that he is the boring-but-competent one against the charismatic but flawed partygate buffoonery of Boris (being generous to Boris there).
Sunak would essentially occupy the same boring-but-competent territory. Which is bad for Starmer.
Except that one has a modicum of working class background and a trusted profession.
The other is the richest person in Parliament and was a banker. Replace the first letter & you have how most people view them.
lawyer who are almost as unloved as bankers.
Utterly untrue as Mike Smithson demonstrated the other day.
IPSOS MORI (One of your two permitted pollsters):
Other professions trusted by more than half of the public include museum curators, the police, lawyers, civil servants, the ordinary man/woman on the street and clergy/priests. Professions with negative net trust ratings include bankers, local councillors, business leaders, professional footballers, estate agents and journalists.
"If Old Labour had bulldozed Eton in the Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss.
"If Old Labour had not bulldozed most of the Grammar schools in the Sixties and Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools I presume
No, everyone. The presence of those from the working class in positions of power helps everyone.
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools
Yep appalling institutions
So appalling they produced the highest number of non privately educated people products in our top professions, yes even judges and lawyers had plenty of grammar school alumni. More so than the number who now come from comprehensives
If you got rid of private schools and grammar schools then 100% of our PMs, people in top professions and judges and lawyers would be from comprehensives. Explain that one.
If you got rid of Waitrose, Marks and Spencer and Sainsburys all their customers would have to shop at Tesco, Aldi or Lidl. Explain that one.
I believe in choice for parents as much as consumers
Is Steve Barclay a part time chief of staff because this Government’s only a part time Government.
Or is Steve looking at George “10 jobs” Osbourne and seeing how far he can push things.
He's an MP so any other job he takes on has to be part time. We accept part time cabinet ministers as the norm, as they all try to hold down MP jobs as well.
But he is also staying a minister as well
Fair enough. When people bang on about MPs not being allowed to have second jobs, I think they should ban Government jobs as well. Especially as there is an obvious conflict of interest - how can you hold the Government to account if you are a member of it?
No 10 Chief of Staff should be a part time role anyway. We would be much better off if Boris was a puppet being controlled by a faction within the Conservative party. Time to abandon the Fuehrerprinzip.
Descending from the important questions in the Header to the nakedly partisan - apols - I wonder how a Sunak/Starmer match-up would play to the country? I haven't quite worked myself out a take on this yet. I do probably need to since he looks nailed on if and when 'it' finally happens.
Starmer's only real appeal is that he is the boring-but-competent one against the charismatic but flawed partygate buffoonery of Boris (being generous to Boris there).
Sunak would essentially occupy the same boring-but-competent territory. Which is bad for Starmer.
Except that one has a modicum of working class background and a trusted profession.
The other is the richest person in Parliament and was a banker. Replace the first letter & you have how most people view them.
lawyer who are almost as unloved as bankers.
Utterly untrue as Mike Smithson demonstrated the other day.
IPSOS MORI (One of your two permitted pollsters):
Other professions trusted by more than half of the public include museum curators, the police, lawyers, civil servants, the ordinary man/woman on the street and clergy/priests. Professions with negative net trust ratings include bankers, local councillors, business leaders, professional footballers, estate agents and journalists.
"If Old Labour had bulldozed Eton in the Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss.
"If Old Labour had not bulldozed most of the Grammar schools in the Sixties and Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools I presume
No, everyone. The presence of those from the working class in positions of power helps everyone.
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools
Yep appalling institutions
So appalling they produced the highest number of non privately educated people products in our top professions, yes even judges and lawyers had plenty of grammar school alumni. More so than the number who now come from comprehensives
If you got rid of private schools and grammar schools then 100% of our PMs, people in top professions and judges and lawyers would be from comprehensives. Explain that one.
If you got rid of Waitrose, Marks and Spencer and Sainsburys all their customers would have to shop at Tesco, Aldi or Lidl. Explain that one.
I believe in choice for parents as much as consumers
Let me break it down for you.
1. I don't believe we should abolish existing grammar schools.
2. I don't believe we should abolish private schools.
3. However, if we did, then 100% of our 'elite' would be from comprehensives.
I am really not sure how Scotland won that. Brilliant defence, some silly mistakes by England, a phenomenal crowd, probably all of the above.
i think outrageous luck played quite a part, as well.
Nonetheless it is good to see huge crowds roaring on home sides in the Six Nations. Much missed. And Murrayfield definitely helped Scotland over the line
I wouldn’t be betting on Scotland for the World Cup, however
counting down to the moment when the SNP try to create a grievance out of the realisation that, unlike expats, people in an independent Scotland wouldn’t get to vote in UK elections
Although the Irish do, of course, as do many Commonwealth citizens who are permanent residents. As long as they are resident.
Can imagine Scotland might get a similar arrangement.
Possibly - it will all be up for negotiation - but Scot’s resident in Scotland will not be entitled to votes in rUK elections, no more than they will be entitled to pensions paid for by rUK tax payers.
Sunak could be one of 3 Tory leadership hopefuls. At best he would be the next John Major, who narrowly wins another term for the Tories after ten years in power. Alternatively he could be the next Douglas Home, who narrowly lost a general election after ten years in power but made it closer than expected so Wilson only got a majority of 4. At worst he would be the next David Miliband or Michael Portillo and fail to even become leader, let alone win a general election.
If Sunak wants to be the first, like Major he needs to connect with the average voter. That means focusing on low taxes but also a commitment to public services and while opposed to socialism not getting too close to the laissez faire wing of the City and large corporations and the libertarian wing of the Tory right.
Now Brexit has got done austerity and deregulation will not keep the redwall. While any form of wealth tax would be as disastrous as May's dementia tax proved with Tory leaning swing voters.
I also disagree all alternatives to Boris would be better. Other than maybe Sunak most would probably poll worse than Boris with the public in the end
A new John Major is the best you now have to hope for, pal.
Fair enough but when have Labour ever won a fourth or fifth consecutive general election? Never. The best they managed was 3 consecutive general election wins under Blair
If the great HY is now falling back on consoling himself with past glories, we truly are approaching the end of days…
How long do you think your lot will be in opposition?
His idea of the conservative party, hopefully permanently
I suppose the question about Rishi Sunak is whether it's to be a known or an unknown quantity. John Major, for all he had been FS and was CoE, was a largely unknown figure in the autumn of 1990. Admittedly, when he started t get some media attention, the public liked what they saw and that prevented Michael Heseltine from winning the leadership election.
Sunak is a far more "known" quantity whether you think of him as "Dishy Rishi" or not. I'm to be convinced he can empathise with the majority of people and especially those finding it hard going economically and it remains to be seen how comfortable he will be in situations where he's not dealing with a room full of loyal Conservatives.
From where I sit, he comes over as someone who has not known failure - he seems to have been successful in everything he has done so far - and I just think the experience of failure or disappointment develops you as a person and an individual. That's just my observation.
@HYUFD offers a policy programme for him which has few surprises from a Conservative perspective. As others will say, he'll need to be seen to be running a Government and an economic policy that isn't wholly subservient to the Laffer Curve or to the financial sector. We are seeing, I think, the consequences of allowing the post-pandemic demand surge to overheat the economy.
We can't go on with what I would term the economics of Mercury - " we want it all and we want it now".
The other thing is that I think his government CV has been Local Government (telling councils they can't have money to spend), Chief Sec (telling everyone they can't have money to spend) and now Chancellor. I don't think he's ever had a role where he's been on the other side of the table- arguing for a bit of government spending because it's needed.
That would be a problem for any potential PM, but for one with (let's face it) as guilded a career as Rishi it's doubly so. For all his charm, he isn't new, improved John Major.
And financially, the next 2 years are set to be rubbish for a lot of people.
Sunak is responsible for the hike in national insurance - Half of it could have been avoided just by curbing the massive fraud that has gone on with furlough /CBILS loans etc . I think he has therefore failed in his job and not fit to be PM . Even if you argue that tax rises cannot be avoided in already a very high tax country then NI should have been the last tax to put it on . NI more than parties will cause the loss of red wall seats to the tories .Sunak has no experience of red wall seats . The eat out to help out scheme was also frankly pathetic causing more fraud , paperwork at both ends and for no effect
Descending from the important questions in the Header to the nakedly partisan - apols - I wonder how a Sunak/Starmer match-up would play to the country? I haven't quite worked myself out a take on this yet. I do probably need to since he looks nailed on if and when 'it' finally happens.
Starmer's only real appeal is that he is the boring-but-competent one against the charismatic but flawed partygate buffoonery of Boris (being generous to Boris there).
Sunak would essentially occupy the same boring-but-competent territory. Which is bad for Starmer.
Except that one has a modicum of working class background and a trusted profession.
The other is the richest person in Parliament and was a banker. Replace the first letter & you have how most people view them.
lawyer who are almost as unloved as bankers.
Utterly untrue as Mike Smithson demonstrated the other day.
IPSOS MORI (One of your two permitted pollsters):
Other professions trusted by more than half of the public include museum curators, the police, lawyers, civil servants, the ordinary man/woman on the street and clergy/priests. Professions with negative net trust ratings include bankers, local councillors, business leaders, professional footballers, estate agents and journalists.
"If Old Labour had bulldozed Eton in the Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss.
"If Old Labour had not bulldozed most of the Grammar schools in the Sixties and Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools I presume
No, everyone. The presence of those from the working class in positions of power helps everyone.
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools
Yep appalling institutions
So appalling they produced the highest number of non privately educated people products in our top professions, yes even judges and lawyers had plenty of grammar school alumni. More so than the number who now come from comprehensives
If you got rid of private schools and grammar schools then 100% of our PMs, people in top professions and judges and lawyers would be from comprehensives. Explain that one.
If you got rid of Waitrose, Marks and Spencer and Sainsburys all their customers would have to shop at Tesco, Aldi or Lidl. Explain that one.
I believe in choice for parents as much as consumers
Let me break it down for you.
1. I don't believe we should abolish existing grammar schools.
2. I don't believe we should abolish private schools.
3. However, if we did, then 100% of our 'elite' would be from comprehensives.
I ask again, explain that one?
If you ban private schools, then the ‘elites’ will send their kids to school abroad - just as the elites of many other countries currently aspire to be able to send their kids to school in the UK.
Is Steve Barclay a part time chief of staff because this Government’s only a part time Government.
Or is Steve looking at George “10 jobs” Osbourne and seeing how far he can push things.
He's an MP so any other job he takes on has to be part time. We accept part time cabinet ministers as the norm, as they all try to hold down MP jobs as well.
But he is also staying a minister as well
Fair enough. When people bang on about MPs not being allowed to have second jobs, I think they should ban Government jobs as well. Especially as there is an obvious conflict of interest - how can you hold the Government to account if you are a member of it?
No 10 Chief of Staff should be a part time role anyway. We would be much better off if Boris was a puppet being controlled by a faction within the Conservative party. Time to abandon the Fuehrerprinzip.
No way Chief of Staff should be a part-time role. It is 24/7. One of the most intense, if not the most intense jobs in politics.
But Hari as comms is a smart choice. That will stay some letters this weekend imho.
Descending from the important questions in the Header to the nakedly partisan - apols - I wonder how a Sunak/Starmer match-up would play to the country? I haven't quite worked myself out a take on this yet. I do probably need to since he looks nailed on if and when 'it' finally happens.
Starmer's only real appeal is that he is the boring-but-competent one against the charismatic but flawed partygate buffoonery of Boris (being generous to Boris there).
Sunak would essentially occupy the same boring-but-competent territory. Which is bad for Starmer.
Except that one has a modicum of working class background and a trusted profession.
The other is the richest person in Parliament and was a banker. Replace the first letter & you have how most people view them.
lawyer who are almost as unloved as bankers.
Utterly untrue as Mike Smithson demonstrated the other day.
IPSOS MORI (One of your two permitted pollsters):
Other professions trusted by more than half of the public include museum curators, the police, lawyers, civil servants, the ordinary man/woman on the street and clergy/priests. Professions with negative net trust ratings include bankers, local councillors, business leaders, professional footballers, estate agents and journalists.
"If Old Labour had bulldozed Eton in the Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss.
"If Old Labour had not bulldozed most of the Grammar schools in the Sixties and Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools I presume
No, everyone. The presence of those from the working class in positions of power helps everyone.
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools
Yep appalling institutions
So appalling they produced the highest number of non privately educated people products in our top professions, yes even judges and lawyers had plenty of grammar school alumni. More so than the number who now come from comprehensives
If you got rid of private schools and grammar schools then 100% of our PMs, people in top professions and judges and lawyers would be from comprehensives. Explain that one.
If you got rid of Waitrose, Marks and Spencer and Sainsburys all their customers would have to shop at Tesco, Aldi or Lidl. Explain that one.
I believe in choice for parents as much as consumers
Let me break it down for you.
1. I don't believe we should abolish existing grammar schools.
2. I don't believe we should abolish private schools.
3. However, if we did, then 100% of our 'elite' would be from comprehensives.
I ask again, explain that one?
If you ban private schools, then the ‘elites’ will send their kids to school abroad - just as the elites of many other countries currently aspire to be able to send their kids to school in the UK.
Only a small minority.
My point is that HY quotes statistics without any appreciation of the other factors at play.
We know that comprehensives are better in rich areas and we know that wealth players a big part in children's prospects, regardless of whether you go to a comprehensive or a grammar school.
Therefore simply saying "ah but X% of our 'elite' went to a grammar school" tells us absolutely nothing about the benefit of grammar schools.
Descending from the important questions in the Header to the nakedly partisan - apols - I wonder how a Sunak/Starmer match-up would play to the country? I haven't quite worked myself out a take on this yet. I do probably need to since he looks nailed on if and when 'it' finally happens.
Starmer's only real appeal is that he is the boring-but-competent one against the charismatic but flawed partygate buffoonery of Boris (being generous to Boris there).
Sunak would essentially occupy the same boring-but-competent territory. Which is bad for Starmer.
Except that one has a modicum of working class background and a trusted profession.
The other is the richest person in Parliament and was a banker. Replace the first letter & you have how most people view them.
lawyer who are almost as unloved as bankers.
Utterly untrue as Mike Smithson demonstrated the other day.
IPSOS MORI (One of your two permitted pollsters):
Other professions trusted by more than half of the public include museum curators, the police, lawyers, civil servants, the ordinary man/woman on the street and clergy/priests. Professions with negative net trust ratings include bankers, local councillors, business leaders, professional footballers, estate agents and journalists.
"If Old Labour had bulldozed Eton in the Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss.
"If Old Labour had not bulldozed most of the Grammar schools in the Sixties and Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools I presume
No, everyone. The presence of those from the working class in positions of power helps everyone.
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools
Yep appalling institutions
So appalling they produced the highest number of non privately educated people products in our top professions, yes even judges and lawyers had plenty of grammar school alumni. More so than the number who now come from comprehensives
If you got rid of private schools and grammar schools then 100% of our PMs, people in top professions and judges and lawyers would be from comprehensives. Explain that one.
You think that by getting rid of the better performing schools you magically make the worse ones any better? Do you think if we got rid of all the best performing hospitals the worse ones would kill fewer people?
Yours is the lowest common denominator in spades. Yes you would end up with all your judges coming from Comprehensives but they would have had a worse education for it. And the top professionals would all be imported from other countries.
Descending from the important questions in the Header to the nakedly partisan - apols - I wonder how a Sunak/Starmer match-up would play to the country? I haven't quite worked myself out a take on this yet. I do probably need to since he looks nailed on if and when 'it' finally happens.
Starmer's only real appeal is that he is the boring-but-competent one against the charismatic but flawed partygate buffoonery of Boris (being generous to Boris there).
Sunak would essentially occupy the same boring-but-competent territory. Which is bad for Starmer.
Except that one has a modicum of working class background and a trusted profession.
The other is the richest person in Parliament and was a banker. Replace the first letter & you have how most people view them.
lawyer who are almost as unloved as bankers.
Utterly untrue as Mike Smithson demonstrated the other day.
IPSOS MORI (One of your two permitted pollsters):
Other professions trusted by more than half of the public include museum curators, the police, lawyers, civil servants, the ordinary man/woman on the street and clergy/priests. Professions with negative net trust ratings include bankers, local councillors, business leaders, professional footballers, estate agents and journalists.
"If Old Labour had bulldozed Eton in the Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss.
"If Old Labour had not bulldozed most of the Grammar schools in the Sixties and Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools I presume
No, everyone. The presence of those from the working class in positions of power helps everyone.
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools
Yep appalling institutions
So appalling they produced the highest number of non privately educated people products in our top professions, yes even judges and lawyers had plenty of grammar school alumni. More so than the number who now come from comprehensives
If you got rid of private schools and grammar schools then 100% of our PMs, people in top professions and judges and lawyers would be from comprehensives. Explain that one.
If you got rid of Waitrose, Marks and Spencer and Sainsburys all their customers would have to shop at Tesco, Aldi or Lidl. Explain that one.
I believe in choice for parents as much as consumers
Let me break it down for you.
1. I don't believe we should abolish existing grammar schools.
2. I don't believe we should abolish private schools.
3. However, if we did, then 100% of our 'elite' would be from comprehensives.
I ask again, explain that one?
The elite could still be educated overseas, educated at home by private tutors, receive additional educational input from private tutors, etc.etc.etc. The idea that comprehensive education would be amazing if the elite had to send their kids there is one of the most ridiculous around.
Is Steve Barclay a part time chief of staff because this Government’s only a part time Government.
Or is Steve looking at George “10 jobs” Osbourne and seeing how far he can push things.
He's an MP so any other job he takes on has to be part time. We accept part time cabinet ministers as the norm, as they all try to hold down MP jobs as well.
But he is also staying a minister as well
The other thing all this shows is the finite size of Team Bozza.
A Chief of Staff should ideally be some bright but steely-eyed, chiseled-jawed Bright Young Thing on the make. And yet there doesn't seem to be anyone like that. It's the same old gang, retreaded and spread ever thinner.
How much that is because Boris only trusts the old gang, and how much because Bright Young Things aren't interested, I wouldn't like to say.
Descending from the important questions in the Header to the nakedly partisan - apols - I wonder how a Sunak/Starmer match-up would play to the country? I haven't quite worked myself out a take on this yet. I do probably need to since he looks nailed on if and when 'it' finally happens.
Starmer's only real appeal is that he is the boring-but-competent one against the charismatic but flawed partygate buffoonery of Boris (being generous to Boris there).
Sunak would essentially occupy the same boring-but-competent territory. Which is bad for Starmer.
Except that one has a modicum of working class background and a trusted profession.
The other is the richest person in Parliament and was a banker. Replace the first letter & you have how most people view them.
lawyer who are almost as unloved as bankers.
Utterly untrue as Mike Smithson demonstrated the other day.
IPSOS MORI (One of your two permitted pollsters):
Other professions trusted by more than half of the public include museum curators, the police, lawyers, civil servants, the ordinary man/woman on the street and clergy/priests. Professions with negative net trust ratings include bankers, local councillors, business leaders, professional footballers, estate agents and journalists.
"If Old Labour had bulldozed Eton in the Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss.
"If Old Labour had not bulldozed most of the Grammar schools in the Sixties and Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools I presume
No, everyone. The presence of those from the working class in positions of power helps everyone.
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools
Yep appalling institutions
So appalling they produced the highest number of non privately educated people products in our top professions, yes even judges and lawyers had plenty of grammar school alumni. More so than the number who now come from comprehensives
If you got rid of private schools and grammar schools then 100% of our PMs, people in top professions and judges and lawyers would be from comprehensives. Explain that one.
You think that by getting rid of the better performing schools you magically make the worse ones any better? Do you think if we got rid of all the best performing hospitals the worse ones would kill fewer people?
Yours is the lowest common denominator in spades. Yes you would end up with all your judges coming from Comprehensives but they would have had a worse education for it. And the top professionals would all be imported from other countries.
Eh? I'm not advocating for the abolition of private schools or grammar schools. I'm merely showing that his "statistic" is meaningless as a measure of the benefits of grammar schools.
Descending from the important questions in the Header to the nakedly partisan - apols - I wonder how a Sunak/Starmer match-up would play to the country? I haven't quite worked myself out a take on this yet. I do probably need to since he looks nailed on if and when 'it' finally happens.
Starmer's only real appeal is that he is the boring-but-competent one against the charismatic but flawed partygate buffoonery of Boris (being generous to Boris there).
Sunak would essentially occupy the same boring-but-competent territory. Which is bad for Starmer.
Except that one has a modicum of working class background and a trusted profession.
The other is the richest person in Parliament and was a banker. Replace the first letter & you have how most people view them.
lawyer who are almost as unloved as bankers.
Utterly untrue as Mike Smithson demonstrated the other day.
IPSOS MORI (One of your two permitted pollsters):
Other professions trusted by more than half of the public include museum curators, the police, lawyers, civil servants, the ordinary man/woman on the street and clergy/priests. Professions with negative net trust ratings include bankers, local councillors, business leaders, professional footballers, estate agents and journalists.
"If Old Labour had bulldozed Eton in the Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss.
"If Old Labour had not bulldozed most of the Grammar schools in the Sixties and Seventies then almost everyone's life would be better today." Discuss
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools I presume
No, everyone. The presence of those from the working class in positions of power helps everyone.
Apart from the people who didn't get into the grammar schools
Yep appalling institutions
So appalling they produced the highest number of non privately educated people products in our top professions, yes even judges and lawyers had plenty of grammar school alumni. More so than the number who now come from comprehensives
If you got rid of private schools and grammar schools then 100% of our PMs, people in top professions and judges and lawyers would be from comprehensives. Explain that one.
If you got rid of Waitrose, Marks and Spencer and Sainsburys all their customers would have to shop at Tesco, Aldi or Lidl. Explain that one.
I believe in choice for parents as much as consumers
Let me break it down for you.
1. I don't believe we should abolish existing grammar schools.
2. I don't believe we should abolish private schools.
3. However, if we did, then 100% of our 'elite' would be from comprehensives.
I ask again, explain that one?
The elite could still be educated overseas, educated at home by private tutors, receive additional educational input from private tutors, etc.etc.etc. The idea that comprehensive education would be amazing if the elite had to send their kids there is one of the most ridiculous around.
But i'm not saying that comprehensive education would be amazing if the elite had sent their kids there.
I still don't think the British public will stomach a multi-millionare banker, hedge fund manager especially in the dark financial days ahead.
The tory party? That's a different story.
Sunak has a net worth of £200 million and is son in law of a billionaire. He would be the richest PM in the modern era and also while not as posh as Home or Cameron, being Winchester and Oxford educated still pretty posh himself
I don’t care how rich someone is. I do care about overall competence and image
On the other hand, he will be able to pay for his own refurbishing of Downing Street without the helping hand of a donor.....
Many moons ago during my misspent youth, when Jay Rockefeller ran for Governor of West Virginia, after less than a decade of residence (though he had been elected to the House of Delegates then as Secretary of State during the interval) the most common AND persuasive argument raised in his favor, by actual voters from Kenova to Harpers Ferry was this -
"He's so rich that he won't need to steal."
Which said - and still says - a lot about WVa. But ditto re: human nature > voting decisions & choices.
I still don't think the British public will stomach a multi-millionare banker, hedge fund manager especially in the dark financial days ahead.
The tory party? That's a different story.
Sunak has a net worth of £200 million and is son in law of a billionaire. He would be the richest PM in the modern era and also while not as posh as Home or Cameron, being Winchester and Oxford educated still pretty posh himself
I don’t care how rich someone is. I do care about overall competence and image
On the other hand, he will be able to pay for his own refurbishing of Downing Street without the helping hand of a donor.....
Exactly. And is it totally fanciful to imagine that the failure to give the go ahead to tidal lagoons might just have something to do with eventual generosity that may occur (no brown envelopes, all above board) from competing energy concerns? Sunak has 200 million reasons not to have to grub around for post-retirement speaking engagements the way that successive PMs have before him have done.
That's the Trump line. "I'm rich so I can be my own man". With a dash of "Being so rich proves I'm smart." I doubt it will work here. I think it's more liability than asset for him.
It's interesting to see the inverse snobbery about grammar and private schools - e.g. 'terrible institutions'.
I went to both state and private schools at various times, and I can honestly say I've had zero advantage from being an alumni of the latter. But it was blooming good in various ways - letting me independently study in a subject I was good at, rather than go to classes, and with my health problems.
But the private school I went to in the late 80s early 90s when a generation away from the private schools depicted in the likes of 'If...'. From what I see, my old school has moved on much since then as well. The stereotypes were outdated then, and more so now.
Our little 'un seems to have skills in one or two subjects. Perhaps that will fade over time, or perhaps they will improve further. But Mrs J and I will do virtually anything to ensure that he gets the help he needs in education. As I'm tight, I'd prefer not to send him to private school (beside, I'm quite fond of the little fella). But private tuition would certainly be on the cards if necessary.
I'm sure most parents feel the same: and if their local school isn't helping their children, they'll look elsewhere - whether in schools or tuition.
Sunak could be one of 3 Tory leadership hopefuls. At best he would be the next John Major, who narrowly wins another term for the Tories after ten years in power. Alternatively he could be the next Douglas Home, who narrowly lost a general election after ten years in power but made it closer than expected so Wilson only got a majority of 4. At worst he would be the next David Miliband or Michael Portillo and fail to even become leader, let alone win a general election.
If Sunak wants to be the first, like Major he needs to connect with the average voter. That means focusing on low taxes but also a commitment to public services and while opposed to socialism not getting too close to the laissez faire wing of the City and large corporations and the libertarian wing of the Tory right.
Now Brexit has got done austerity and deregulation will not keep the redwall. While any form of wealth tax would be as disastrous as May's dementia tax proved with Tory leaning swing voters.
I also disagree all alternatives to Boris would be better. Other than maybe Sunak most would probably poll worse than Boris with the public in the end
A new John Major is the best you now have to hope for, pal.
Fair enough but when have Labour ever won a fourth or fifth consecutive general election? Never. The best they managed was 3 consecutive general election wins under Blair
If the great HY is now falling back on consoling himself with past glories, we truly are approaching the end of days…
How long do you think your lot will be in opposition?
His idea of the conservative party, hopefully permanently
I rather imagine than when the party finally emerges from its next molecular readjustment, he’ll still be there in love with its new image…
I suppose the question about Rishi Sunak is whether it's to be a known or an unknown quantity. John Major, for all he had been FS and was CoE, was a largely unknown figure in the autumn of 1990. Admittedly, when he started t get some media attention, the public liked what they saw and that prevented Michael Heseltine from winning the leadership election.
Sunak is a far more "known" quantity whether you think of him as "Dishy Rishi" or not. I'm to be convinced he can empathise with the majority of people and especially those finding it hard going economically and it remains to be seen how comfortable he will be in situations where he's not dealing with a room full of loyal Conservatives.
From where I sit, he comes over as someone who has not known failure - he seems to have been successful in everything he has done so far - and I just think the experience of failure or disappointment develops you as a person and an individual. That's just my observation.
@HYUFD offers a policy programme for him which has few surprises from a Conservative perspective. As others will say, he'll need to be seen to be running a Government and an economic policy that isn't wholly subservient to the Laffer Curve or to the financial sector. We are seeing, I think, the consequences of allowing the post-pandemic demand surge to overheat the economy.
We can't go on with what I would term the economics of Mercury - " we want it all and we want it now".
The other thing is that I think his government CV has been Local Government (telling councils they can't have money to spend), Chief Sec (telling everyone they can't have money to spend) and now Chancellor. I don't think he's ever had a role where he's been on the other side of the table- arguing for a bit of government spending because it's needed.
That would be a problem for any potential PM, but for one with (let's face it) as guilded a career as Rishi it's doubly so. For all his charm, he isn't new, improved John Major.
And financially, the next 2 years are set to be rubbish for a lot of people.
Sunak is responsible for the hike in national insurance - Half of it could have been avoided just by curbing the massive fraud that has gone on with furlough /CBILS loans etc . I think he has therefore failed in his job and not fit to be PM . Even if you argue that tax rises cannot be avoided in already a very high tax country then NI should have been the last tax to put it on . NI more than parties will cause the loss of red wall seats to the tories .Sunak has no experience of red wall seats . The eat out to help out scheme was also frankly pathetic causing more fraud , paperwork at both ends and for no effect
Is Steve Barclay a part time chief of staff because this Government’s only a part time Government.
Or is Steve looking at George “10 jobs” Osbourne and seeing how far he can push things.
He's an MP so any other job he takes on has to be part time. We accept part time cabinet ministers as the norm, as they all try to hold down MP jobs as well.
But he is also staying a minister as well
The other thing all this shows is the finite size of Team Bozza.
A Chief of Staff should ideally be some bright but steely-eyed, chiseled-jawed Bright Young Thing on the make. And yet there doesn't seem to be anyone like that. It's the same old gang, retreaded and spread ever thinner.
How much that is because Boris only trusts the old gang, and how much because Bright Young Things aren't interested, I wouldn't like to say.
Rish's postives are that he is smart, articulate, rich, ethnic and empathic. His negatives is that he is rich, ex Goldman Sachs, despite a vivid imagination struggles to understand what the average joe is struggling with, a bit wooden and in some respects he has not been tested as a Chancellor who was allowed to let rip in an extraordinary situation.
What I think he would bring to the government is a sense of professionalism, less blunders, less charisma and some calmness. We need that. It's time.
Rish's postives are that he is smart, articulate, rich, ethnic and empathic. His negatives is that he is rich, ex Goldman Sachs, despite a vivid imagination struggles to understand what the average joe is struggling with, a bit wooden and in some respects he has not been tested as a Chancellor who was allowed to let rip in an extraordinary situation.
What I think he would bring to the government is a sense of professionalism, less blunders, less charisma and some calmness. We need that. It's time.
Maybe we could have a thread where we try and work out what Rishi's IQ is.
I still don't think the British public will stomach a multi-millionare banker, hedge fund manager especially in the dark financial days ahead.
The tory party? That's a different story.
Sunak has a net worth of £200 million and is son in law of a billionaire. He would be the richest PM in the modern era and also while not as posh as Home or Cameron, being Winchester and Oxford educated still pretty posh himself
I don’t care how rich someone is. I do care about overall competence and image
On the other hand, he will be able to pay for his own refurbishing of Downing Street without the helping hand of a donor.....
Exactly. And is it totally fanciful to imagine that the failure to give the go ahead to tidal lagoons might just have something to do with eventual generosity that may occur (no brown envelopes, all above board) from competing energy concerns? Sunak has 200 million reasons not to have to grub around for post-retirement speaking engagements the way that successive PMs have before him have done.
That's the Trump line. "I'm rich so I can be my own man". With a dash of "Being so rich proves I'm smart." I doubt it will work here. I think it's more liability than asset for him.
Perhaps. It doesn't worry me personally though, for the reason above.
Comments
'So our new boss is a pro-Remain lobbyist who's said the PM is 'sexually incontinent', 'hugely divisive', 'destructive', 'dragging the country down', & picked 'wrong side' in referendum' GREAT 🤡'
#RegimeChange
https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1490029370475429889
Because you know full well that Theresa May did not win in 2017 and nor, for that matter, did David Cameron in 2010.
Lawyers are well below doctors, nurses, professors, engineers, scientists, teachers even police and museum curators on that chart.
Johnson’s shadow whipping operation believes that a minimum of 35 MPs have submitted their letters, though they think it is likely to be about 45, nine short of the target. Some MPs believe the figure could already be more than 50.
The plans are a desperate throw of the dice by Johnson to change the narrative of his premiership, which is paralysed by a crisis where he, his ministers, aides and MPs are subject to a water torture of seemingly almost daily disasters and gaffes.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/paralysed-in-no-10-are-the-pm-and-his-wife-ready-to-let-it-go-2kdcnrhss
I suppose the question about Rishi Sunak is whether it's to be a known or an unknown quantity. John Major, for all he had been FS and was CoE, was a largely unknown figure in the autumn of 1990. Admittedly, when he started t get some media attention, the public liked what they saw and that prevented Michael Heseltine from winning the leadership election.
Sunak is a far more "known" quantity whether you think of him as "Dishy Rishi" or not. I'm to be convinced he can empathise with the majority of people and especially those finding it hard going economically and it remains to be seen how comfortable he will be in situations where he's not dealing with a room full of loyal Conservatives.
From where I sit, he comes over as someone who has not known failure - he seems to have been successful in everything he has done so far - and I just think the experience of failure or disappointment develops you as a person and an individual. That's just my observation.
@HYUFD offers a policy programme for him which has few surprises from a Conservative perspective. As others will say, he'll need to be seen to be running a Government and an economic policy that isn't wholly subservient to the Laffer Curve or to the financial sector. We are seeing, I think, the consequences of allowing the post-pandemic demand surge to overheat the economy.
We can't go on with what I would term the economics of Mercury - " we want it all and we want it now".
They are not 'well below'. Lawyer is the second most respected career after doctors.
Yet again you 1. get it wrong and 2. refuse to admit it. 3. Move your goalposts.
Are you BoJo in disguise?
Cowan-Dickie? Kicking for the corner?
Hague, Ed Miliband, Brown, Heath and Corbyn went to state schools for secondary education
I'd then rank Sunak behind her, followed by Hunt. I'd be very confident of Labour winning a majority if Truss was leader, and it would be a landslide if it was Gove or Patel.
Or is Steve looking at George “10 jobs” Osbourne and seeing how far he can push things.
She's great. Powerful back story. Could win the centre, where it matters most.
https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/1490003501916856325?s=20&t=_Tb_06dT3XvHkRwrlgQERQ
How long do you think your lot will be in opposition?
@HYUFD is Manchester United and I claim my £5.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEcqh21EJGg
Can imagine Scotland might get a similar arrangement.
Retained.
The longest we were out of power was the 13 years of New Labour and whatever else Starmer is he is no Blair, even if he does win
That would be a problem for any potential PM, but for one with (let's face it) as guilded a career as Rishi it's doubly so. For all his charm, he isn't new, improved John Major.
And financially, the next 2 years are set to be rubbish for a lot of people.
Close to a quarter century of tremendous challenges, triumphs, changes and turmoil for UK. Tory dominance was product in good measure of successes achieved (or perceived) in office, but also thanks to opposition disarray amplified by government repression. And from first to last, top Tories within & without the cabinet fought like cats in a bag, most famous example being rivalry Castlereagh v. Canning.
I believe in choice for parents as much as consumers
No 10 Chief of Staff should be a part time role anyway. We would be much better off if Boris was a puppet being controlled by a faction within the Conservative party. Time to abandon the Fuehrerprinzip.
1. I don't believe we should abolish existing grammar schools.
2. I don't believe we should abolish private schools.
3. However, if we did, then 100% of our 'elite' would be from comprehensives.
I ask again, explain that one?
Nonetheless it is good to see huge crowds roaring on home sides in the Six Nations. Much missed. And Murrayfield definitely helped Scotland over the line
I wouldn’t be betting on Scotland for the World Cup, however
But Hari as comms is a smart choice. That will stay some letters this weekend imho.
My point is that HY quotes statistics without any appreciation of the other factors at play.
We know that comprehensives are better in rich areas and we know that wealth players a big part in children's prospects, regardless of whether you go to a comprehensive or a grammar school.
Therefore simply saying "ah but X% of our 'elite' went to a grammar school" tells us absolutely nothing about the benefit of grammar schools.
It's just bollocks, as usual.
Yours is the lowest common denominator in spades. Yes you would end up with all your judges coming from Comprehensives but they would have had a worse education for it. And the top professionals would all be imported from other countries.
A Chief of Staff should ideally be some bright but steely-eyed, chiseled-jawed Bright Young Thing on the make. And yet there doesn't seem to be anyone like that. It's the same old gang, retreaded and spread ever thinner.
How much that is because Boris only trusts the old gang, and how much because Bright Young Things aren't interested, I wouldn't like to say.
"He's so rich that he won't need to steal."
Which said - and still says - a lot about WVa. But ditto re: human nature > voting decisions & choices.
I went to both state and private schools at various times, and I can honestly say I've had zero advantage from being an alumni of the latter. But it was blooming good in various ways - letting me independently study in a subject I was good at, rather than go to classes, and with my health problems.
But the private school I went to in the late 80s early 90s when a generation away from the private schools depicted in the likes of 'If...'. From what I see, my old school has moved on much since then as well. The stereotypes were outdated then, and more so now.
Our little 'un seems to have skills in one or two subjects. Perhaps that will fade over time, or perhaps they will improve further. But Mrs J and I will do virtually anything to ensure that he gets the help he needs in education. As I'm tight, I'd prefer not to send him to private school (beside, I'm quite fond of the little fella). But private tuition would certainly be on the cards if necessary.
I'm sure most parents feel the same: and if their local school isn't helping their children, they'll look elsewhere - whether in schools or tuition.
What I think he would bring to the government is a sense of professionalism, less blunders, less charisma and some calmness. We need that. It's time.