Bad news for Jeremy Hunt. Damian Green is the sort of MP who might have supported him.
Green was Hancock's proposer in the 2019 leadership election.
So, yes, he might have supported Hunt but by absolutely no means a banker for him (and he's not that brilliant a judge).
This will take a while to shake down. There could be several rounds with minor candidates showing a level of support as part of making the case for a cabinet role in future, before the serious business of choosing the final three from among the big boys and girls gets underway.
This is a prediction that no doubt will come back to haunt me, but colour me sceptical about candidates (like Tugendhat) who've not held a major cabinet job at some point. The Conservative Party is selecting a PM, not a leader in opposition, and these characters look like they are jockeying for cabinet position rather than the top job.
Whenever I mention Tom Tugendhat as a potential runner to politically-less-engaged friends/colleagues/family/casually aquaintances, their reaction is always the same: surely that can't be his name? I wonder what sort of a barrier this will be? When did we last have a PM with a name that peculiar? Penny Mordaunt, btw, carries a related handicap: how does one pronounce 'Mordaunt'? I'm hoping it's 'Mordant', or 'Mordunt'. Please tell me it's not 'Mordarnt'? That will put everyone north of Birmingham off.
You lot know more about politics than most. Does anyone know anything about Wallace’s politics other than his resolute stance on national security and the Russian War?
Not sure if mentioned but Redfield have a poll out at 5 conducted entirely this morning described by Election Maps UK who has seen it as 'expectedly spicy'
Think all polling is a bit redundant till we know who the new (wo)man is in No 10.
There will be a lot of hypothetical Starmer vs Random Tory polling which might be influential if enough MPs have faith in opinion polls.
EXCL: Boris Johnson and wife Carrie are planning big wedding bash at Chequers within weeks - with sources saying it's part of reason he wants to stay as caretaker.
Maybe if we all club together we can get them to hold it at Gleneagles instead, if that helps free things up. I'd happily contribute 10% of my 'Raab as next PM' winnings to get things started.
Johnson is the third PM to fall in six years because there is no solution to the deep economic and environmental crisis we face that picks our pockets and steals our future.
Real change isn't a new Tory PM but a new politics to redistribute wealth and power.
Valdimir Putin proclaiming his hatred of Boris Johnson = Boris Johnson proclaiming his love for Barack Obama.
Lying liars lying as per usual for usual reasons that lying liars lie.
Are you still sticking to the idea that Johnson was a Putin stooge?
No. Not in the way YOU mean. Not a question of taking orders, but of moving along parallel lines, mutual aid, and all that.
Like Hitler and Mussolini. The former took the later for his role model, but certain neither was the puppet of the other.
World is not as simplistic as you would like it to be, for ideological purposes.
Vlad the Mad, BJx2, 45, Orban, Modi, Bolasano = League of Their Own
No doubt in the 1930s you'd have been calling Stanley Baldwin a fascist too.
Good grief.
Show me ONE example of Stanley Baldwin acting in the accustomed style & manner of Adolf Hitler.
Whereas it is NOT difficult to find Boris Johnson acting in style and manner Mad Vlad. Curbed, of course, by the British Constitution - or what's left of it. As with 45 in USA.
Can you tell me who Johnson has had bumped off? Which countries he's invaded? Which political opponents he's had imprisoned? Which businesses he's expropriated? Which warlords he's bankrolled?
Again, like I just said, Johnson is acting under constraints that do NOT apply to Putin. Same as 45.
Maybe you think we should give them more leeway? I doubt that. And so would Stanley Baldwin I reckon.
Johnson is the third PM to fall in six years because there is no solution to the deep economic and environmental crisis we face that picks our pockets and steals our future.
Real change isn't a new Tory PM but a new politics to redistribute wealth and power.
If Johnson was a Putin stooge, then Putin got a very, very poor deal out of it. If he did, then it was a failed gamble; money wasted.
It doesn't mean he didn't try, though ...
Brexit; increased strain on the union, with both Scotland and Northern Ireland looking a bit dicey; continued army cuts; Lebedev; continued selling off of British defence and technology companies.
Aside from Brexit and the odd inclusion of Lebedev, those are just continuation of long-term trends.
The counter argument is much more persuasive: continued sanctions on Russia after Salisbury, continuation of the training scheme for Ukrainian troops; the way Johnson led the world (yes, really) in helping Ukraine at the start of this mess.
It would have been really easy for Johnson to have stopped or reduced the training scheme, called for the loosening of sanctions ("for peace"), not provided Ukraine with NLAWS, and not been as strident against Russia back in February.
That's where the argument for Johnson being a Putin stooge really falls down. His major actions were the opposite, and hurt Russia.
I think "stooge" might be a straw man, though keep an eye on whether Starmer runs with Lebedev that was getting Labour excited in the Commons this morning, but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia, so perhaps a Leninist useful idiot is the other end of the scale. We also know Russia does interfere with foreign politics; that the KGB attempted to recruit David Cameron; that Russians continue to fund the Conservative Party. But it is probably a step too far to claim Boris follows daily orders from the Kremlin.
" but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia,"
And some really, really important and immediate things that really went against Russia's interests. That's where your argument fails.
Not really. That is a straw man argument, as above. And what are these things Boris did? Sanctions against Russia were led by the United States, and even Jeremy Corbyn wanted to go further than Boris. British-supplied NLAWS were crucial in the battle for Kyiv, it is true, but since then we've not supplied much, no doubt in part because we do not have much we can supply after decades of Tory defence cuts.
But if all you want to claim is that Boris was not directly controlled from the Kremlin, then yes.
EXCL: Boris Johnson and wife Carrie are planning big wedding bash at Chequers within weeks - with sources saying it's part of reason he wants to stay as caretaker.
Maybe if we all club together we can get them to hold it at Gleneagles instead, if that helps free things up. I'd happily contribute 10% of my 'Raab as next PM' winnings to get things started.
He would flat-out refuse to go north of the border after his last trip with Carrie, to Applecross in midge season.
EXCL: Boris Johnson and wife Carrie are planning big wedding bash at Chequers within weeks - with sources saying it's part of reason he wants to stay as caretaker.
If Johnson was a Putin stooge, then Putin got a very, very poor deal out of it. If he did, then it was a failed gamble; money wasted.
It doesn't mean he didn't try, though ...
Brexit; increased strain on the union, with both Scotland and Northern Ireland looking a bit dicey; continued army cuts; Lebedev; continued selling off of British defence and technology companies.
Aside from Brexit and the odd inclusion of Lebedev, those are just continuation of long-term trends.
The counter argument is much more persuasive: continued sanctions on Russia after Salisbury, continuation of the training scheme for Ukrainian troops; the way Johnson led the world (yes, really) in helping Ukraine at the start of this mess.
It would have been really easy for Johnson to have stopped or reduced the training scheme, called for the loosening of sanctions ("for peace"), not provided Ukraine with NLAWS, and not been as strident against Russia back in February.
That's where the argument for Johnson being a Putin stooge really falls down. His major actions were the opposite, and hurt Russia.
I think "stooge" might be a straw man, though keep an eye on whether Starmer runs with Lebedev that was getting Labour excited in the Commons this morning, but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia, so perhaps a Leninist useful idiot is the other end of the scale. We also know Russia does interfere with foreign politics; that the KGB attempted to recruit David Cameron; that Russians continue to fund the Conservative Party. But it is probably a step too far to claim Boris follows daily orders from the Kremlin.
" but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia,"
And some really, really important and immediate things that really went against Russia's interests. That's where your argument fails.
Not really. That is a straw man argument, as above. And what are these things Boris did? Sanctions against Russia were led by the United States, and even Jeremy Corbyn wanted to go further than Boris. British-supplied NLAWS were crucial in the battle for Kyiv, it is true, but since then we've not supplied much, no doubt in part because we do not have much we can supply after decades of Tory defence cuts.
But if all you want to claim is that Boris was not directly controlled from the Kremlin, then yes.
Erhhh the training of Ukraine troops which is ongoing, especially prior to the invasion has been crucial to their ability to push back the Russians. The special forces units that were SAS trained have been absolutely key to consistently disrupting the supply lines.
Now the Ukrainian are being trained on firing large artillery.
You keep posting this nonsense about Corbyn, at every opportunity he has demanded there isn't any fighting, we just sit down and chat with Putin (and we have seen how that has gone when Macron has tried it). And his response to Salisbury was a disgrace. His criticism are always about Tories taking donations, he has never blabbered on about how we shouldn't use sanctions as they hurt the people etc.
EXCL: Boris Johnson and wife Carrie are planning big wedding bash at Chequers within weeks - with sources saying it's part of reason he wants to stay as caretaker.
Not sure if mentioned but Redfield have a poll out at 5 conducted entirely this morning described by Election Maps UK who has seen it as 'expectedly spicy'
Think all polling is a bit redundant till we know who the new (wo)man is in No 10.
There will be a lot of hypothetical Starmer vs Random Tory polling which might be influential if enough MPs have faith in opinion polls.
In my professional experience, elected (or hoping to be) politicos typically have a GREAT deal of faith in opinion polls.
EXCL: Boris Johnson and wife Carrie are planning big wedding bash at Chequers within weeks - with sources saying it's part of reason he wants to stay as caretaker.
I’m sure they have a friend with a big country pad they can shift it to as all they should be saving by having it at Chequers was venue hire as they would have to pay for food/staff etc…..
Also would be a bit like holding your wedding at your ex in-laws’ house - a dirty great stone reminder of a failed past in the background of all your photos.
EXCL: Boris Johnson and wife Carrie are planning big wedding bash at Chequers within weeks - with sources saying it's part of reason he wants to stay as caretaker.
If Johnson was a Putin stooge, then Putin got a very, very poor deal out of it. If he did, then it was a failed gamble; money wasted.
It doesn't mean he didn't try, though ...
Brexit; increased strain on the union, with both Scotland and Northern Ireland looking a bit dicey; continued army cuts; Lebedev; continued selling off of British defence and technology companies.
Aside from Brexit and the odd inclusion of Lebedev, those are just continuation of long-term trends.
The counter argument is much more persuasive: continued sanctions on Russia after Salisbury, continuation of the training scheme for Ukrainian troops; the way Johnson led the world (yes, really) in helping Ukraine at the start of this mess.
It would have been really easy for Johnson to have stopped or reduced the training scheme, called for the loosening of sanctions ("for peace"), not provided Ukraine with NLAWS, and not been as strident against Russia back in February.
That's where the argument for Johnson being a Putin stooge really falls down. His major actions were the opposite, and hurt Russia.
I think "stooge" might be a straw man, though keep an eye on whether Starmer runs with Lebedev that was getting Labour excited in the Commons this morning, but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia, so perhaps a Leninist useful idiot is the other end of the scale. We also know Russia does interfere with foreign politics; that the KGB attempted to recruit David Cameron; that Russians continue to fund the Conservative Party. But it is probably a step too far to claim Boris follows daily orders from the Kremlin.
" but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia,"
And some really, really important and immediate things that really went against Russia's interests. That's where your argument fails.
Not really. That is a straw man argument, as above. And what are these things Boris did? Sanctions against Russia were led by the United States, and even Jeremy Corbyn wanted to go further than Boris. British-supplied NLAWS were crucial in the battle for Kyiv, it is true, but since then we've not supplied much, no doubt in part because we do not have much we can supply after decades of Tory defence cuts.
But if all you want to claim is that Boris was not directly controlled from the Kremlin, then yes.
£2.3 bn in military aid is not insignificant, along with years of training their armed forces. At any rate, the Ukrainians seems impressed, and their opinion is the only one that matters.
EXCL: Boris Johnson and wife Carrie are planning big wedding bash at Chequers within weeks - with sources saying it's part of reason he wants to stay as caretaker.
I’m sure they have a friend with a big country pad they can shift it to as all they should be saving by having it at Chequers was venue hire as they would have to pay for food/staff etc…..
Also would be a bit like holding your wedding at your ex in-laws’ house - a dirty great stone reminder of a failed past in the background of all your photos.
Is Johnson paying for the private use of Chequers?
If Johnson was a Putin stooge, then Putin got a very, very poor deal out of it. If he did, then it was a failed gamble; money wasted.
It doesn't mean he didn't try, though ...
Brexit; increased strain on the union, with both Scotland and Northern Ireland looking a bit dicey; continued army cuts; Lebedev; continued selling off of British defence and technology companies.
Aside from Brexit and the odd inclusion of Lebedev, those are just continuation of long-term trends.
The counter argument is much more persuasive: continued sanctions on Russia after Salisbury, continuation of the training scheme for Ukrainian troops; the way Johnson led the world (yes, really) in helping Ukraine at the start of this mess.
It would have been really easy for Johnson to have stopped or reduced the training scheme, called for the loosening of sanctions ("for peace"), not provided Ukraine with NLAWS, and not been as strident against Russia back in February.
That's where the argument for Johnson being a Putin stooge really falls down. His major actions were the opposite, and hurt Russia.
I think "stooge" might be a straw man, though keep an eye on whether Starmer runs with Lebedev that was getting Labour excited in the Commons this morning, but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia, so perhaps a Leninist useful idiot is the other end of the scale. We also know Russia does interfere with foreign politics; that the KGB attempted to recruit David Cameron; that Russians continue to fund the Conservative Party. But it is probably a step too far to claim Boris follows daily orders from the Kremlin.
" but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia,"
And some really, really important and immediate things that really went against Russia's interests. That's where your argument fails.
Not really. That is a straw man argument, as above. And what are these things Boris did? Sanctions against Russia were led by the United States, and even Jeremy Corbyn wanted to go further than Boris. British-supplied NLAWS were crucial in the battle for Kyiv, it is true, but since then we've not supplied much, no doubt in part because we do not have much we can supply after decades of Tory defence cuts.
But if all you want to claim is that Boris was not directly controlled from the Kremlin, then yes.
Wow. Just wow. Not just factually incorrect, but also rather tin-foily.
You should (for instance) apply the same logic to Germany and its leaders...
EXCL: Boris Johnson and wife Carrie are planning big wedding bash at Chequers within weeks - with sources saying it's part of reason he wants to stay as caretaker.
EXCL: Boris Johnson and wife Carrie are planning big wedding bash at Chequers within weeks - with sources saying it's part of reason he wants to stay as caretaker.
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
Javid is basically discount Sunak, so I don't really get why one is a no and one isn't.
Other than still holding on to some residual Sunak-love long after it should have gone, I basically agree with this.
Also, it's pwned, not pawned.
Yes, not a bad summary.
There's also Zahawi (my view:surely no), Baker(my view: definitely no) and Hunt (my view:possibly).
That leaves a sufficient gap for a real outsider I think. (my pick: Alex Chalk)
EXCL: Boris Johnson and wife Carrie are planning big wedding bash at Chequers within weeks - with sources saying it's part of reason he wants to stay as caretaker.
Seriously, whether or not there's any truth in that, it illustrates why it's so absurd to have Boris remaining as PM over the summer: there will be endless such stories, no doubt some of them will turn out to be zingers, and so the party will remain mired in scandal, unable to move on.
Friend of mine just made a brilliant analogy. Said the fall of Boris has been like a public execution. Everyone has been standing around baying for the blood of the panto villain, and yet, now his head is chopped off there is a weird silence and emptiness. It hasn’t brought the fulfilment hoped. A tinge of regret or guilt on the air. People walk quietly away
EXCL: Boris Johnson and wife Carrie are planning big wedding bash at Chequers within weeks - with sources saying it's part of reason he wants to stay as caretaker.
EXCL: Boris Johnson and wife Carrie are planning big wedding bash at Chequers within weeks - with sources saying it's part of reason he wants to stay as caretaker.
If Johnson was a Putin stooge, then Putin got a very, very poor deal out of it. If he did, then it was a failed gamble; money wasted.
It doesn't mean he didn't try, though ...
Brexit; increased strain on the union, with both Scotland and Northern Ireland looking a bit dicey; continued army cuts; Lebedev; continued selling off of British defence and technology companies.
Aside from Brexit and the odd inclusion of Lebedev, those are just continuation of long-term trends.
The counter argument is much more persuasive: continued sanctions on Russia after Salisbury, continuation of the training scheme for Ukrainian troops; the way Johnson led the world (yes, really) in helping Ukraine at the start of this mess.
It would have been really easy for Johnson to have stopped or reduced the training scheme, called for the loosening of sanctions ("for peace"), not provided Ukraine with NLAWS, and not been as strident against Russia back in February.
That's where the argument for Johnson being a Putin stooge really falls down. His major actions were the opposite, and hurt Russia.
I think "stooge" might be a straw man, though keep an eye on whether Starmer runs with Lebedev that was getting Labour excited in the Commons this morning, but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia, so perhaps a Leninist useful idiot is the other end of the scale. We also know Russia does interfere with foreign politics; that the KGB attempted to recruit David Cameron; that Russians continue to fund the Conservative Party. But it is probably a step too far to claim Boris follows daily orders from the Kremlin.
" but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia,"
And some really, really important and immediate things that really went against Russia's interests. That's where your argument fails.
Horrible thought Boris is, it's far-fetched to view him as Putin's man in No. 10. At any rate, Putin has wasted his money, if so.
Just to make it clear if anyone has forgotten: I didn't want Boris to be PM, I've not voted Conservative whilst he has been leader, and I said he would be a very poor PM. I was an 'anyone but Boris' person.
But I'll defend him on the Russia criticism, which seem rather odd.
Friend of mine just made a brilliant analogy. Said the fall of Boris has been like a public execution. Everyone has been standing around baying for the blood of the panto villain, and yet, now his head is chopped off there is a weird silence and emptiness. It hasn’t brought the fulfilment hoped. A tinge of regret or guilt on the air. People walk quietly away
He isn't dead. He walked away from the scaffold laughing at us. Again.
EXCL: Boris Johnson and wife Carrie are planning big wedding bash at Chequers within weeks - with sources saying it's part of reason he wants to stay as caretaker.
Seriously, whether or not there's any truth in that, it illustrates why it's so absurd to have Boris remaining as PM over the summer: there will be endless such stories, no doubt some of them will turn out to be zingers, and so the party remain mired in scandal, unable to move on.
Oh yes, indeed: not just his own rep but the party's. And at a dreadful time for ordinary plebs* as OLB so rightly says.
*Edit: and, to keep Malmesbury et al happy, the capites censi.
UK debt is on an unsustainable path unless there are cuts in spending AND increases in taxes. This is why Sunak was so keen to keep a hold of his tax increases in NI and CT. We are living massively and unsustainably beyond our means.
Anyone wanting to cut taxes to defuse either the CoL crisis or even inflation has really got to come to terms with the fact that the government cannot really afford to do either.
1. Promise massive tax cuts for the right sort of people and tax increases for the benefits scroungers 2. Become Prime Minister 3. Push implementation of much of (1) backwards whilst blaming the idiot predecessor 4. Hope that the mess becomes Someone Else's Problem
It may be the last time I ever will, but I suspect I would agree with HYUFD who will likely suggest bypassing members is a bad idea, if it is to be for a permanent replacement.
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
Curious why you say absolutely not about Truss?
I believe you've been very positive about her in the past on her role for Equalities and Women's issues which I know is an issue close to your heart?
So I'm wondering what she's said or done to make her absolutely not, despite that?
She can stay as Equalities Minister or Kemi can do it.
Valdimir Putin proclaiming his hatred of Boris Johnson = Boris Johnson proclaiming his love for Barack Obama.
Lying liars lying as per usual for usual reasons that lying liars lie.
Are you still sticking to the idea that Johnson was a Putin stooge?
No. Not in the way YOU mean. Not a question of taking orders, but of moving along parallel lines, mutual aid, and all that.
Like Hitler and Mussolini. The former took the later for his role model, but certain neither was the puppet of the other.
World is not as simplistic as you would like it to be, for ideological purposes.
Vlad the Mad, BJx2, 45, Orban, Modi, Bolasano = League of Their Own
No doubt in the 1930s you'd have been calling Stanley Baldwin a fascist too.
Good grief.
Show me ONE example of Stanley Baldwin acting in the accustomed style & manner of Adolf Hitler.
Whereas it is NOT difficult to find Boris Johnson acting in style and manner Mad Vlad. Curbed, of course, by the British Constitution - or what's left of it. As with 45 in USA.
Can you tell me who Johnson has had bumped off? Which countries he's invaded? Which political opponents he's had imprisoned? Which businesses he's expropriated? Which warlords he's bankrolled?
Again, like I just said, Johnson is acting under constraints that do NOT apply to Putin. Same as 45.
Maybe you think we should give them more leeway? I doubt that. And so would Stanley Baldwin I reckon.
So what you mean is that you can picture him acting like Putin if he weren't constrained by acting within a completely different political culture.
In fact there are probably more similarities between Hillary Clinton and Putin than between Johnson and Putin. She joked about droning Julian Assange, laughed about Gaddafi being brutally murdered, raged against foreign influences and argued that he election loss was illegitimate.
EXCL: Boris Johnson and wife Carrie are planning big wedding bash at Chequers within weeks - with sources saying it's part of reason he wants to stay as caretaker.
I’m sure they have a friend with a big country pad they can shift it to as all they should be saving by having it at Chequers was venue hire as they would have to pay for food/staff etc…..
Also would be a bit like holding your wedding at your ex in-laws’ house - a dirty great stone reminder of a failed past in the background of all your photos.
Is Johnson paying for the private use of Chequers?
Sorry silly question!
Based on the Chequers Estate Act 1917:
As to the Mansion House and grounds and the said furniture pictures tapestry books manuscripts china relics works of art silver linen and other effects hereby assigned upon trust to keep the same in good repair and condition with a staff of not less than four resident indoor servants and with the necessary number of gardeners and labourers and properly warmed and lighted and generally in a fit state as a furnished residence fit for occupation and upon further trust to permit and suffer the Prime Minister for the time being to occupy use and enjoy the same as a furnished country residence for such periods continuous or discontinuous as he may in his absolute discretion think fit.
If Johnson was a Putin stooge, then Putin got a very, very poor deal out of it. If he did, then it was a failed gamble; money wasted.
It doesn't mean he didn't try, though ...
Brexit; increased strain on the union, with both Scotland and Northern Ireland looking a bit dicey; continued army cuts; Lebedev; continued selling off of British defence and technology companies.
Aside from Brexit and the odd inclusion of Lebedev, those are just continuation of long-term trends.
The counter argument is much more persuasive: continued sanctions on Russia after Salisbury, continuation of the training scheme for Ukrainian troops; the way Johnson led the world (yes, really) in helping Ukraine at the start of this mess.
It would have been really easy for Johnson to have stopped or reduced the training scheme, called for the loosening of sanctions ("for peace"), not provided Ukraine with NLAWS, and not been as strident against Russia back in February.
That's where the argument for Johnson being a Putin stooge really falls down. His major actions were the opposite, and hurt Russia.
I think "stooge" might be a straw man, though keep an eye on whether Starmer runs with Lebedev that was getting Labour excited in the Commons this morning, but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia, so perhaps a Leninist useful idiot is the other end of the scale. We also know Russia does interfere with foreign politics; that the KGB attempted to recruit David Cameron; that Russians continue to fund the Conservative Party. But it is probably a step too far to claim Boris follows daily orders from the Kremlin.
" but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia,"
And some really, really important and immediate things that really went against Russia's interests. That's where your argument fails.
Not really. That is a straw man argument, as above. And what are these things Boris did? Sanctions against Russia were led by the United States, and even Jeremy Corbyn wanted to go further than Boris. British-supplied NLAWS were crucial in the battle for Kyiv, it is true, but since then we've not supplied much, no doubt in part because we do not have much we can supply after decades of Tory defence cuts.
But if all you want to claim is that Boris was not directly controlled from the Kremlin, then yes.
Wow. Just wow. Not just factually incorrect, but also rather tin-foily.
You should (for instance) apply the same logic to Germany and its leaders...
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
Javid is basically discount Sunak, so I don't really get why one is a no and one isn't.
Other than still holding on to some residual Sunak-love long after it should have gone, I basically agree with this.
Bad news for Jeremy Hunt. Damian Green is the sort of MP who might have supported him.
Green was Hancock's proposer in the 2019 leadership election.
So, yes, he might have supported Hunt but by absolutely no means a banker for him (and he's not that brilliant a judge).
This will take a while to shake down. There could be several rounds with minor candidates showing a level of support as part of making the case for a cabinet role in future, before the serious business of choosing the final three from among the big boys and girls gets underway.
This is a prediction that no doubt will come back to haunt me, but colour me sceptical about candidates (like Tugendhat) who've not held a major cabinet job at some point. The Conservative Party is selecting a PM, not a leader in opposition, and these characters look like they are jockeying for cabinet position rather than the top job.
Whenever I mention Tom Tugendhat as a potential runner to politically-less-engaged friends/colleagues/family/casually aquaintances, their reaction is always the same: surely that can't be his name? I wonder what sort of a barrier this will be? When did we last have a PM with a name that peculiar? Penny Mordaunt, btw, carries a related handicap: how does one pronounce 'Mordaunt'? I'm hoping it's 'Mordant', or 'Mordunt'. Please tell me it's not 'Mordarnt'? That will put everyone north of Birmingham off.
I think these things are utterly irrelevant. I give you all that and raise you Pete Buttigieg.
I do, however, think Tugendhat and Mordaunt both have a problem amongst MPs as they have next to no cabinet experience. The former none at all, the latter a couple of years in a minor department and five minutes at Defence, essentially as a placeholder right at the end of May's ministry.
It won't matter so much to party members, but it's a genuine problem in terms of getting on the ballot. How will they lead a cabinet of colleagues who have that experience? How will the fare on a big occasion under real pressure at the dispatch box? Can they bear up to the pressure of dealing with a policy crisis? Are they respected by senior civil servants?
This is all going to give MPs real pause for thought even if they are attracted by these characters, since they'd be going straight in as PM facing big national and international problems... and the "L" plates are a major concern.
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
Javid is basically discount Sunak, so I don't really get why one is a no and one isn't.
Other than still holding on to some residual Sunak-love long after it should have gone, I basically agree with this.
Also, it's pwned, not pawned.
Yes, not a bad summary.
There's also Zahawi (my view:surely no), Baker(my view: definitely no) and Hunt (my view:possibly).
That leaves a sufficient gap for a real outsider I think. (my pick: Alex Chalk)
Although Alex Chalk is a good egg he’s too much in danger from the LibDems in his seat.
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
Curious why you say absolutely not about Truss?
I believe you've been very positive about her in the past on her role for Equalities and Women's issues which I know is an issue close to your heart?
So I'm wondering what she's said or done to make her absolutely not, despite that?
She can stay as Equalities Minister or Kemi can do it.
But I don't think she has what it takes to be PM.
She may well get it, mind.
Truss had better not get it; I've just laid her. Admittedly I'd backed her at 150/1, probably by mistake.
EXCL: Boris Johnson and wife Carrie are planning big wedding bash at Chequers within weeks - with sources saying it's part of reason he wants to stay as caretaker.
I’m sure they have a friend with a big country pad they can shift it to as all they should be saving by having it at Chequers was venue hire as they would have to pay for food/staff etc…..
Also would be a bit like holding your wedding at your ex in-laws’ house - a dirty great stone reminder of a failed past in the background of all your photos.
You think that Boris & Carrie are planning to pay ANY of the expense for this summer shindig?
Still plenty of favor to curry, influence to peddle, deals to be done, scum to be skimmed.
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
Curious why you say absolutely not about Truss?
I believe you've been very positive about her in the past on her role for Equalities and Women's issues which I know is an issue close to your heart?
So I'm wondering what she's said or done to make her absolutely not, despite that?
She can stay as Equalities Minister or Kemi can do it.
But I don't think she has what it takes to be PM.
She may well get it, mind.
Do you mind if I ask why?
She's been in the Cabinet about a decade under three very different Prime Ministers. I can't really think of any scandals anywhere she's been, other than she once spoke about cheese and pork markets weirdly nearly a decade ago.
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
Javid is basically discount Sunak, so I don't really get why one is a no and one isn't.
Other than still holding on to some residual Sunak-love long after it should have gone, I basically agree with this.
Also, it's pwned, not pawned.
Yes, not a bad summary.
There's also Zahawi (my view:surely no), Baker(my view: definitely no) and Hunt (my view:possibly).
That leaves a sufficient gap for a real outsider I think. (my pick: Alex Chalk)
Although Alex Chalk is a good egg he’s too much in danger from the LibDems in his seat.
An incentive to do well!
(I'm sure he's too inexperienced, and I've no reason to suspect he'd even want to run. Just what I've seen of him he's always seemed very good.)
If Johnson was a Putin stooge, then Putin got a very, very poor deal out of it. If he did, then it was a failed gamble; money wasted.
It doesn't mean he didn't try, though ...
Brexit; increased strain on the union, with both Scotland and Northern Ireland looking a bit dicey; continued army cuts; Lebedev; continued selling off of British defence and technology companies.
Aside from Brexit and the odd inclusion of Lebedev, those are just continuation of long-term trends.
The counter argument is much more persuasive: continued sanctions on Russia after Salisbury, continuation of the training scheme for Ukrainian troops; the way Johnson led the world (yes, really) in helping Ukraine at the start of this mess.
It would have been really easy for Johnson to have stopped or reduced the training scheme, called for the loosening of sanctions ("for peace"), not provided Ukraine with NLAWS, and not been as strident against Russia back in February.
That's where the argument for Johnson being a Putin stooge really falls down. His major actions were the opposite, and hurt Russia.
I think "stooge" might be a straw man, though keep an eye on whether Starmer runs with Lebedev that was getting Labour excited in the Commons this morning, but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia, so perhaps a Leninist useful idiot is the other end of the scale. We also know Russia does interfere with foreign politics; that the KGB attempted to recruit David Cameron; that Russians continue to fund the Conservative Party. But it is probably a step too far to claim Boris follows daily orders from the Kremlin.
" but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia,"
And some really, really important and immediate things that really went against Russia's interests. That's where your argument fails.
Not really. That is a straw man argument, as above. And what are these things Boris did? Sanctions against Russia were led by the United States, and even Jeremy Corbyn wanted to go further than Boris. British-supplied NLAWS were crucial in the battle for Kyiv, it is true, but since then we've not supplied much, no doubt in part because we do not have much we can supply after decades of Tory defence cuts.
But if all you want to claim is that Boris was not directly controlled from the Kremlin, then yes.
Erhhh the training of Ukraine troops which is ongoing, especially prior to the invasion has been crucial to their ability to push back the Russians. The special forces units that were SAS trained have been absolutely key to consistently disrupting the supply lines.
Now the Ukrainian are being trained on firing large artillery.
You keep posting this nonsense about Corbyn, at every opportunity he has demanded there isn't any fighting, we just sit down and chat with Putin (and we have seen how that has gone when Macron has tried it). And his response to Salisbury was a disgrace. His criticism are always about Tories taking donations, he has never blabbered on about how we shouldn't use sanctions as they hurt the people etc.
To be fair Corbyn has coupled his demand for a ceasefire with withdrawal of Russian troops. This is his tweet on the day of the invasion:
If Braverman can pick up more than a handful of votes, she must be seriously considered for a Cabinet position by whoever does win, and such are the vagaries of Tory leadership elections that rank outsiders can win, like David Cameron, Theresa May and Margaret Thatcher.
Friend of mine just made a brilliant analogy. Said the fall of Boris has been like a public execution. Everyone has been standing around baying for the blood of the panto villain, and yet, now his head is chopped off there is a weird silence and emptiness. It hasn’t brought the fulfilment hoped. A tinge of regret or guilt on the air. People walk quietly away
The weird silence and emptiness is because he's promised to have his head chopped off in October, so there's no catharsis in having him announce the event happening in the future, relative to it actually happening.
It's hard to celebrate his demise when he hasn't actually demised yet.
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
Curious why you say absolutely not about Truss?
I believe you've been very positive about her in the past on her role for Equalities and Women's issues which I know is an issue close to your heart?
So I'm wondering what she's said or done to make her absolutely not, despite that?
She can stay as Equalities Minister or Kemi can do it.
But I don't think she has what it takes to be PM.
She may well get it, mind.
Do you mind if I ask why?
She's been in the Cabinet about a decade under three very different Prime Ministers. I can't really think of any scandals anywhere she's been, other than she once spoke about cheese and pork markets weirdly nearly a decade ago.
Seems like a sensible, moderate choice to me.
'sensible'? No. I'd worry about her starting WW3 to look good to the backbenchers.
It may be the last time I ever will, but I suspect I would agree with HYUFD who will likely suggest bypassing members is a bad idea, if it is to be for a permanent replacement.
Since the PM is appointed by the Queen, and the Queen always follows the advice of her PMs, how do the Tories propose to remove Boris? Especially if he says "I need to stay in post until October Ma'am"?
If Braverman can pick up more than a handful of votes, she must be seriously considered for a Cabinet position by whoever does win, and such are the vagaries of Tory leadership elections that rank outsiders can win, like David Cameron, Theresa May and Margaret Thatcher.
If Johnson was a Putin stooge, then Putin got a very, very poor deal out of it. If he did, then it was a failed gamble; money wasted.
It doesn't mean he didn't try, though ...
Brexit; increased strain on the union, with both Scotland and Northern Ireland looking a bit dicey; continued army cuts; Lebedev; continued selling off of British defence and technology companies.
Aside from Brexit and the odd inclusion of Lebedev, those are just continuation of long-term trends.
The counter argument is much more persuasive: continued sanctions on Russia after Salisbury, continuation of the training scheme for Ukrainian troops; the way Johnson led the world (yes, really) in helping Ukraine at the start of this mess.
It would have been really easy for Johnson to have stopped or reduced the training scheme, called for the loosening of sanctions ("for peace"), not provided Ukraine with NLAWS, and not been as strident against Russia back in February.
That's where the argument for Johnson being a Putin stooge really falls down. His major actions were the opposite, and hurt Russia.
I think "stooge" might be a straw man, though keep an eye on whether Starmer runs with Lebedev that was getting Labour excited in the Commons this morning, but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia, so perhaps a Leninist useful idiot is the other end of the scale. We also know Russia does interfere with foreign politics; that the KGB attempted to recruit David Cameron; that Russians continue to fund the Conservative Party. But it is probably a step too far to claim Boris follows daily orders from the Kremlin.
" but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia,"
And some really, really important and immediate things that really went against Russia's interests. That's where your argument fails.
Not really. That is a straw man argument, as above. And what are these things Boris did? Sanctions against Russia were led by the United States, and even Jeremy Corbyn wanted to go further than Boris. British-supplied NLAWS were crucial in the battle for Kyiv, it is true, but since then we've not supplied much, no doubt in part because we do not have much we can supply after decades of Tory defence cuts.
But if all you want to claim is that Boris was not directly controlled from the Kremlin, then yes.
Erhhh the training of Ukraine troops which is ongoing, especially prior to the invasion has been crucial to their ability to push back the Russians. The special forces units that were SAS trained have been absolutely key to consistently disrupting the supply lines.
Now the Ukrainian are being trained on firing large artillery.
You keep posting this nonsense about Corbyn, at every opportunity he has demanded there isn't any fighting, we just sit down and chat with Putin (and we have seen how that has gone when Macron has tried it). And his response to Salisbury was a disgrace. His criticism are always about Tories taking donations, he has never blabbered on about how we shouldn't use sanctions as they hurt the people etc.
To be fair Corbyn has coupled his demand for a ceasefire with withdrawal of Russian troops. This is his tweet on the day of the invasion:
Of course he did, its classic Stop the War nonsense that doesn't live in the real world. A letter to Putin asking him if he would please withdraw your troops is about as effective writing to Boris Johnson to ask him to stop lying.
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
Javid is basically discount Sunak, so I don't really get why one is a no and one isn't.
Other than still holding on to some residual Sunak-love long after it should have gone, I basically agree with this.
Also, it's pwned, not pawned.
Sunak's record is why he is a no, to my mind.
Javid: I'm not sure about yet
In Javid's account there is the positive of two good resignations.
EXCL: Boris Johnson and wife Carrie are planning big wedding bash at Chequers within weeks - with sources saying it's part of reason he wants to stay as caretaker.
I’m sure they have a friend with a big country pad they can shift it to as all they should be saving by having it at Chequers was venue hire as they would have to pay for food/staff etc…..
Also would be a bit like holding your wedding at your ex in-laws’ house - a dirty great stone reminder of a failed past in the background of all your photos.
You think that Boris & Carrie are planning to pay ANY of the expense for this summer shindig?
Still plenty of favor to curry, influence to peddle, deals to be done, scum to be skimmed.
Yes sorry, I wasn’t overly clear, technically the only free benefit of chequers would be the venue hire as PM - I believe that the PM has to pay for food/booze/entertainments etc out of their own pocket so all that would be problematic in theory if they shifted venue would be additional venue hire cost.
But I’m sure he has “friends” donating fine wines and cake.
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
Javid is basically discount Sunak, so I don't really get why one is a no and one isn't.
Other than still holding on to some residual Sunak-love long after it should have gone, I basically agree with this.
Also, it's pwned, not pawned.
Sunak's record is why he is a no, to my mind.
Javid: I'm not sure about yet
In Javid's account there is the positive of two good resignations.
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
Curious why you say absolutely not about Truss?
I believe you've been very positive about her in the past on her role for Equalities and Women's issues which I know is an issue close to your heart?
So I'm wondering what she's said or done to make her absolutely not, despite that?
She can stay as Equalities Minister or Kemi can do it.
Friend of mine just made a brilliant analogy. Said the fall of Boris has been like a public execution. Everyone has been standing around baying for the blood of the panto villain, and yet, now his head is chopped off there is a weird silence and emptiness. It hasn’t brought the fulfilment hoped. A tinge of regret or guilt on the air. People walk quietly away
The weird silence and emptiness is because he's promised to have his head chopped off in October, so there's no catharsis in having him announce the event happening in the future, relative to it actually happening.
It's hard to celebrate his demise when he hasn't actually demised yet.
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
For those of us less familiar with the current lingo, what is 'getting pawned'?
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
Javid is basically discount Sunak, so I don't really get why one is a no and one isn't.
Other than still holding on to some residual Sunak-love long after it should have gone, I basically agree with this.
Also, it's pwned, not pawned.
I think that's unfair to Javid, who doesn't have an FPN to his name, does have a compelling back story, and did have the integrity to step down in 2020 at a time when he could have bent over for Cummings.
He's not a good public speaker - that's absolutely fair. But he has a lot of attributes Sunak lacks... and I do rather wonder if the direct comparison between the would be jumped to if Sajid Javid was Simon Jones and/or Rishi Sunak was Richard Smith.
If Braverman can pick up more than a handful of votes, she must be seriously considered for a Cabinet position by whoever does win, and such are the vagaries of Tory leadership elections that rank outsiders can win, like David Cameron, Theresa May and Margaret Thatcher.
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
Javid is basically discount Sunak, so I don't really get why one is a no and one isn't.
Other than still holding on to some residual Sunak-love long after it should have gone, I basically agree with this.
Also, it's pwned, not pawned.
Sunak's record is why he is a no, to my mind.
Javid: I'm not sure about yet
Betting Post. Although I put £50 on Javid at 14-1 a year ago, his “statement” though nicely written was poorly delivered. It won’t be him.
It was also bogus, as it was all about principled politician putting country and party before himself. If Boris was 10 points ahead, just held two by elections, Javid wouldn’t even have been out there delivering his statement, he would be in there saying “the prime minister has my full support” on the media round. Would he not?
Friend of mine just made a brilliant analogy. Said the fall of Boris has been like a public execution. Everyone has been standing around baying for the blood of the panto villain, and yet, now his head is chopped off there is a weird silence and emptiness. It hasn’t brought the fulfilment hoped. A tinge of regret or guilt on the air. People walk quietly away
The weird silence and emptiness is because he's promised to have his head chopped off in October, so there's no catharsis in having him announce the event happening in the future, relative to it actually happening.
It's hard to celebrate his demise when he hasn't actually demised yet.
We don't have caretaker PMs in this country.
Not in name, but in effect is is possible. Wellington's second term for instance.
It may be the last time I ever will, but I suspect I would agree with HYUFD who will likely suggest bypassing members is a bad idea, if it is to be for a permanent replacement.
Which is fine but that means Bozo needs to go now so that a clean pair of hands (even Raab) can actually govern between now and when the member vote finishes.
It seems to me pretty obvious that Boris should be removed from Downing Street immediately, with Raab (presumably) replacing him as caretaker. Why? Well, because even when he wanted to have the job of PM in perpetuity, Boris seemed incapable of dealing with the daily grind and attention to detail that it involves. On top of his dissembling, lying and poor judgement, that was the source of his downfall. Does anybody really think he'll give the job due attention now he's on his way out?
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
For those of us less familiar with the current lingo, what is 'getting pawned'?
If Braverman can pick up more than a handful of votes, she must be seriously considered for a Cabinet position by whoever does win, and such are the vagaries of Tory leadership elections that rank outsiders can win, like David Cameron, Theresa May and Margaret Thatcher.
She has a cabinet position
Yes I know but the chap who appointed her is about to leave the stage. She now needs to impress the next Prime Minister that she is a significant player, and there is even an outside chance she might win the grand prize.
If Johnson was a Putin stooge, then Putin got a very, very poor deal out of it. If he did, then it was a failed gamble; money wasted.
It doesn't mean he didn't try, though ...
Brexit; increased strain on the union, with both Scotland and Northern Ireland looking a bit dicey; continued army cuts; Lebedev; continued selling off of British defence and technology companies.
Aside from Brexit and the odd inclusion of Lebedev, those are just continuation of long-term trends.
The counter argument is much more persuasive: continued sanctions on Russia after Salisbury, continuation of the training scheme for Ukrainian troops; the way Johnson led the world (yes, really) in helping Ukraine at the start of this mess.
It would have been really easy for Johnson to have stopped or reduced the training scheme, called for the loosening of sanctions ("for peace"), not provided Ukraine with NLAWS, and not been as strident against Russia back in February.
That's where the argument for Johnson being a Putin stooge really falls down. His major actions were the opposite, and hurt Russia.
I think "stooge" might be a straw man, though keep an eye on whether Starmer runs with Lebedev that was getting Labour excited in the Commons this morning, but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia, so perhaps a Leninist useful idiot is the other end of the scale. We also know Russia does interfere with foreign politics; that the KGB attempted to recruit David Cameron; that Russians continue to fund the Conservative Party. But it is probably a step too far to claim Boris follows daily orders from the Kremlin.
" but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia,"
And some really, really important and immediate things that really went against Russia's interests. That's where your argument fails.
Not really. That is a straw man argument, as above. And what are these things Boris did? Sanctions against Russia were led by the United States, and even Jeremy Corbyn wanted to go further than Boris. British-supplied NLAWS were crucial in the battle for Kyiv, it is true, but since then we've not supplied much, no doubt in part because we do not have much we can supply after decades of Tory defence cuts.
But if all you want to claim is that Boris was not directly controlled from the Kremlin, then yes.
Erhhh the training of Ukraine troops which is ongoing, especially prior to the invasion has been crucial to their ability to push back the Russians. The special forces units that were SAS trained have been absolutely key to consistently disrupting the supply lines.
Now the Ukrainian are being trained on firing large artillery.
You keep posting this nonsense about Corbyn, at every opportunity he has demanded there isn't any fighting, we just sit down and chat with Putin (and we have seen how that has gone when Macron has tried it). And his response to Salisbury was a disgrace. His criticism are always about Tories taking donations, he has never blabbered on about how we shouldn't use sanctions as they hurt the people etc.
To be fair Corbyn has coupled his demand for a ceasefire with withdrawal of Russian troops. This is his tweet on the day of the invasion:
Of course he did, its classic Stop the War nonsense that doesn't live in the real world. A letter to Putin asking him if he would please withdraw your troops is about as effective writing to Boris Johnson to ask him to stop lying.
Yes, but his position is essentially the same as Zelensky, ceasefire and withdrawal, and Ukranian neutrality.
Bad news for Jeremy Hunt. Damian Green is the sort of MP who might have supported him.
Green was Hancock's proposer in the 2019 leadership election.
So, yes, he might have supported Hunt but by absolutely no means a banker for him (and he's not that brilliant a judge).
This will take a while to shake down. There could be several rounds with minor candidates showing a level of support as part of making the case for a cabinet role in future, before the serious business of choosing the final three from among the big boys and girls gets underway.
This is a prediction that no doubt will come back to haunt me, but colour me sceptical about candidates (like Tugendhat) who've not held a major cabinet job at some point. The Conservative Party is selecting a PM, not a leader in opposition, and these characters look like they are jockeying for cabinet position rather than the top job.
Whenever I mention Tom Tugendhat as a potential runner to politically-less-engaged friends/colleagues/family/casually aquaintances, their reaction is always the same: surely that can't be his name? I wonder what sort of a barrier this will be? When did we last have a PM with a name that peculiar? Penny Mordaunt, btw, carries a related handicap: how does one pronounce 'Mordaunt'? I'm hoping it's 'Mordant', or 'Mordunt'. Please tell me it's not 'Mordarnt'? That will put everyone north of Birmingham off.
I think these things are utterly irrelevant. I give you all that and raise you Pete Buttigieg.
I do, however, think Tugendhat and Mordaunt both have a problem amongst MPs as they have next to no cabinet experience. The former none at all, the latter a couple of years in a minor department and five minutes at Defence, essentially as a placeholder right at the end of May's ministry.
It won't matter so much to party members, but it's a genuine problem in terms of getting on the ballot. How will they lead a cabinet of colleagues who have that experience? How will the fare on a big occasion under real pressure at the dispatch box? Can they bear up to the pressure of dealing with a policy crisis? Are they respected by senior civil servants?
This is all going to give MPs real pause for thought even if they are attracted by these characters, since they'd be going straight in as PM facing big national and international problems... and the "L" plates are a major concern.
Penny Mordaunt is an excellent dispatch box performer.
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
Javid is basically discount Sunak, so I don't really get why one is a no and one isn't.
Other than still holding on to some residual Sunak-love long after it should have gone, I basically agree with this.
Also, it's pwned, not pawned.
I think that's unfair to Javid, who doesn't have an FPN to his name, does have a compelling back story, and did have the integrity to step down in 2020 at a time when he could have bent over for Cummings.
He's not a good public speaker - that's absolutely fair. But he has a lot of attributes Sunak lacks... and I do rather wonder if the direct comparison between the would be jumped to if Sajid Javid was Simon Jones and/or Rishi Sunak was Richard Smith.
Nom Dom for six years floated to the surface. What else lurks down there?
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
For those of us less familiar with the current lingo, what is 'getting pawned'?
autocorrect for pwned. "to utterly defeat (an opponent or rival);"
If Braverman can pick up more than a handful of votes, she must be seriously considered for a Cabinet position by whoever does win, and such are the vagaries of Tory leadership elections that rank outsiders can win, like David Cameron, Theresa May and Margaret Thatcher.
She has a cabinet position
I don't think that's technically right. The Attorney General is one of several positions where the incumbent attends Cabinet but isn't actually a member of the Cabinet (like the Paymaster General and Chief Whip).
Morley and Outwood MP Andrea Jenkyns - who backed Boris Johnson right until the end - tells TV cameras after the PM's resignation: "they'll regret it like they did with Thatcher... this will be a mistake" https://twitter.com/harry_horton/status/1545051047932018689/video/1
Valdimir Putin proclaiming his hatred of Boris Johnson = Boris Johnson proclaiming his love for Barack Obama.
Lying liars lying as per usual for usual reasons that lying liars lie.
Are you still sticking to the idea that Johnson was a Putin stooge?
No. Not in the way YOU mean. Not a question of taking orders, but of moving along parallel lines, mutual aid, and all that.
Like Hitler and Mussolini. The former took the later for his role model, but certain neither was the puppet of the other.
World is not as simplistic as you would like it to be, for ideological purposes.
Vlad the Mad, BJx2, 45, Orban, Modi, Bolasano = League of Their Own
No doubt in the 1930s you'd have been calling Stanley Baldwin a fascist too.
Good grief.
Show me ONE example of Stanley Baldwin acting in the accustomed style & manner of Adolf Hitler.
Whereas it is NOT difficult to find Boris Johnson acting in style and manner Mad Vlad. Curbed, of course, by the British Constitution - or what's left of it. As with 45 in USA.
Can you tell me who Johnson has had bumped off? Which countries he's invaded? Which political opponents he's had imprisoned? Which businesses he's expropriated? Which warlords he's bankrolled?
Again, like I just said, Johnson is acting under constraints that do NOT apply to Putin...
Yes, he doesn't have Carrie insisting he'll cling on until the wedding bash is done.
If Johnson was a Putin stooge, then Putin got a very, very poor deal out of it. If he did, then it was a failed gamble; money wasted.
It doesn't mean he didn't try, though ...
Brexit; increased strain on the union, with both Scotland and Northern Ireland looking a bit dicey; continued army cuts; Lebedev; continued selling off of British defence and technology companies.
Aside from Brexit and the odd inclusion of Lebedev, those are just continuation of long-term trends.
The counter argument is much more persuasive: continued sanctions on Russia after Salisbury, continuation of the training scheme for Ukrainian troops; the way Johnson led the world (yes, really) in helping Ukraine at the start of this mess.
It would have been really easy for Johnson to have stopped or reduced the training scheme, called for the loosening of sanctions ("for peace"), not provided Ukraine with NLAWS, and not been as strident against Russia back in February.
That's where the argument for Johnson being a Putin stooge really falls down. His major actions were the opposite, and hurt Russia.
I think "stooge" might be a straw man, though keep an eye on whether Starmer runs with Lebedev that was getting Labour excited in the Commons this morning, but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia, so perhaps a Leninist useful idiot is the other end of the scale. We also know Russia does interfere with foreign politics; that the KGB attempted to recruit David Cameron; that Russians continue to fund the Conservative Party. But it is probably a step too far to claim Boris follows daily orders from the Kremlin.
" but we do know Boris has done things which suited Russia,"
And some really, really important and immediate things that really went against Russia's interests. That's where your argument fails.
Not really. That is a straw man argument, as above. And what are these things Boris did? Sanctions against Russia were led by the United States, and even Jeremy Corbyn wanted to go further than Boris. British-supplied NLAWS were crucial in the battle for Kyiv, it is true, but since then we've not supplied much, no doubt in part because we do not have much we can supply after decades of Tory defence cuts.
But if all you want to claim is that Boris was not directly controlled from the Kremlin, then yes.
Erhhh the training of Ukraine troops which is ongoing, especially prior to the invasion has been crucial to their ability to push back the Russians. The special forces units that were SAS trained have been absolutely key to consistently disrupting the supply lines.
Now the Ukrainian are being trained on firing large artillery.
You keep posting this nonsense about Corbyn, at every opportunity he has demanded there isn't any fighting, we just sit down and chat with Putin (and we have seen how that has gone when Macron has tried it). And his response to Salisbury was a disgrace. His criticism are always about Tories taking donations, he has never blabbered on about how we shouldn't use sanctions as they hurt the people etc.
To be fair Corbyn has coupled his demand for a ceasefire with withdrawal of Russian troops. This is his tweet on the day of the invasion:
Of course he did, its classic Stop the War nonsense that doesn't live in the real world. A letter to Putin asking him if he would please withdraw your troops is about as effective writing to Boris Johnson to ask him to stop lying.
Yes, but his position is essentially the same as Zelensky, ceasefire and withdrawal, and Ukranian neutrality.
Saying that Corbyn's position on Russia is essentially the same as Zelensky's is some gaslighting.
It may be the last time I ever will, but I suspect I would agree with HYUFD who will likely suggest bypassing members is a bad idea, if it is to be for a permanent replacement.
Since the PM is appointed by the Queen, and the Queen always follows the advice of her PMs, how do the Tories propose to remove Boris? Especially if he says "I need to stay in post until October Ma'am"?
If he no longer commands the support of the House of Commons the Queen can ask someone else who can.
So, here is my solution. Boris remains PM until recess (can be VONC'd any time if he tarts about). Resigns on last day once the 2 final runners are known or replacement agreed. Raab takes over until end of contest during recess to babysit any issues that arise and cabinet does its stuff as usual, Boris and Carrie are allowed to use Chequers 'wholly at their expense' for their party. Job done.
Sunak - no Javid: hmmm Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day Truss: absolutely not Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team Braverman: please God no Wallace: possibly
For those of us less familiar with the current lingo, what is 'getting pawned'?
autocorrect for pwned. "to utterly defeat (an opponent or rival);"
Pwned originated as a typo in a computer game and the tech nerds ran with it.
Comments
I wonder what sort of a barrier this will be? When did we last have a PM with a name that peculiar?
Penny Mordaunt, btw, carries a related handicap: how does one pronounce 'Mordaunt'? I'm hoping it's 'Mordant', or 'Mordunt'. Please tell me it's not 'Mordarnt'? That will put everyone north of Birmingham off.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1545046146548019201?s=20&t=MKqDfWi87A-3lQCIwY3HNQ
Real change isn't a new Tory PM but a new politics to redistribute wealth and power.
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1545038685917237248?s=20&t=MKqDfWi87A-3lQCIwY3HNQ
Jezza better form a new party then.
Maybe you think we should give them more leeway? I doubt that. And so would Stanley Baldwin I reckon.
But if all you want to claim is that Boris was not directly controlled from the Kremlin, then yes.
Now the Ukrainian are being trained on firing large artillery.
You keep posting this nonsense about Corbyn, at every opportunity he has demanded there isn't any fighting, we just sit down and chat with Putin (and we have seen how that has gone when Macron has tried it). And his response to Salisbury was a disgrace. His criticism are always about Tories taking donations, he has never blabbered on about how we shouldn't use sanctions as they hurt the people etc.
I’m sure they have a friend with a big country pad they can shift it to as all they should be saving by having it at Chequers was venue hire as they would have to pay for food/staff etc…..
Also would be a bit like holding your wedding at your ex in-laws’ house - a dirty great stone reminder of a failed past in the background of all your photos.
Sorry silly question!
You should (for instance) apply the same logic to Germany and its leaders...
There's also Zahawi (my view:surely no), Baker(my view: definitely no) and Hunt (my view:possibly).
That leaves a sufficient gap for a real outsider I think. (my pick: Alex Chalk)
🔴 Tory MPs are plotting to replace Boris Johnson by the end of next week by side-stepping party members
Read more from @CamillaTominey ⬇️ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/07/07/tory-mps-plotting-replace-boris-johnson-end-next-week/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1657202395-1
But I'll defend him on the Russia criticism, which seem rather odd.
*Edit: and, to keep Malmesbury et al happy, the capites censi.
2. Become Prime Minister
3. Push implementation of much of (1) backwards whilst blaming the idiot predecessor
4. Hope that the mess becomes Someone Else's Problem
But I don't think she has what it takes to be PM.
She may well get it, mind.
In fact there are probably more similarities between Hillary Clinton and Putin than between Johnson and Putin. She joked about droning Julian Assange, laughed about Gaddafi being brutally murdered, raged against foreign influences and argued that he election loss was illegitimate.
As to the Mansion House and grounds and the said furniture pictures tapestry books manuscripts china relics works of art silver linen and other effects hereby assigned upon trust to keep the same in good repair and condition with a staff of not less than four resident indoor servants and with the necessary number of gardeners and labourers and properly warmed and lighted and generally in a fit state as a furnished residence fit for occupation and upon further trust to permit and suffer the Prime Minister for the time being to occupy use and enjoy the same as a furnished country residence for such periods continuous or discontinuous as he may in his absolute discretion think fit.
So the answer is no.
Javid: I'm not sure about yet
I do, however, think Tugendhat and Mordaunt both have a problem amongst MPs as they have next to no cabinet experience. The former none at all, the latter a couple of years in a minor department and five minutes at Defence, essentially as a placeholder right at the end of May's ministry.
It won't matter so much to party members, but it's a genuine problem in terms of getting on the ballot. How will they lead a cabinet of colleagues who have that experience? How will the fare on a big occasion under real pressure at the dispatch box? Can they bear up to the pressure of dealing with a policy crisis? Are they respected by senior civil servants?
This is all going to give MPs real pause for thought even if they are attracted by these characters, since they'd be going straight in as PM facing big national and international problems... and the "L" plates are a major concern.
Still plenty of favor to curry, influence to peddle, deals to be done, scum to be skimmed.
She's been in the Cabinet about a decade under three very different Prime Ministers. I can't really think of any scandals anywhere she's been, other than she once spoke about cheese and pork markets weirdly nearly a decade ago.
Seems like a sensible, moderate choice to me.
(I'm sure he's too inexperienced, and I've no reason to suspect he'd even want to run. Just what I've seen of him he's always seemed very good.)
@johnestevens
·
19m
Michael Gove, Dominic Raab, Andrea Leadsom and Matt Hancock not running for Tory leadership
All four were candidates in 2019 contest
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1496827583828312070?t=08LUQ8CI0kOTUBrZLrwOMg&s=19
In this more recent tweet he backs a petition also demanding Russian withdrawal:
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1516030635542028298?t=leAVsO4Lasra65_j0bxaew&s=19
It's hard to celebrate his demise when he hasn't actually demised yet.
But I’m sure he has “friends” donating fine wines and cake.
Hat. Coat.
Tough crowd on there...
He wanted the title. He wanted the trappings. The deference. The applause.
He never wanted to do the work
He's not a good public speaker - that's absolutely fair. But he has a lot of attributes Sunak lacks... and I do rather wonder if the direct comparison between the would be jumped to if Sajid Javid was Simon Jones and/or Rishi Sunak was Richard Smith.
IMO, it talks more sense than Ms Braverman
It was also bogus, as it was all about principled politician putting country and party before himself. If Boris was 10 points ahead, just held two by elections, Javid wouldn’t even have been out there delivering his statement, he would be in there saying “the prime minister has my full support” on the media round. Would he not?
Why?
Well, because even when he wanted to have the job of PM in perpetuity, Boris seemed incapable of dealing with the daily grind and attention to detail that it involves. On top of his dissembling, lying and poor judgement, that was the source of his downfall.
Does anybody really think he'll give the job due attention now he's on his way out?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwn
Johnson only has himself to blame , with an 80 seat majority he blew that because he’s a pathological liar and unfit for office .
The Tories knew this when they elected him and have inflicted the most divisive and morally corrupt PM on the UK .
One can only hope that at least the next PM will have a decent relationship with the truth .
Re PM: "It's not just about one person..."
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1545051881138819079
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ffqemZ-YOi7AvAw8HbxmMd0vIbsOXLZ7KpAmNQPD2r8/edit#gid=0
It might be in everyone's interests if they don't have any input this time.
(Plus there's the process can be massively accelerated this way.)
Boris remains PM until recess (can be VONC'd any time if he tarts about). Resigns on last day once the 2 final runners are known or replacement agreed. Raab takes over until end of contest during recess to babysit any issues that arise and cabinet does its stuff as usual, Boris and Carrie are allowed to use Chequers 'wholly at their expense' for their party.
Job done.