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).
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.
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.
I'm sure she speaks well. But there's a difference between giving a statement and answering questions as a pretty junior figure, and dealing with the big Parliamentary occasion.
Look - I'm not saying she or others lack attractive qualities or would be bad PMs. I'm simply - in terms of betting predictions - saying that MPs are going to be worried about putting someone in who MIGHT be good but is somewhat untested. I think there will be a strong bias towards known quantities.
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
Maybe, but I think its not over yet as he is still PM. If he resigned and left Raab in charge it would feel different.
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
John Major won the subsequent general election and notwithstanding Jenkyns is an idiot.
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.
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.
To be fair to her, she might do less harm as PM than as Attorney General.
Suella’s bid for PM is laugh-out-loudable. I can’t remember a less appropriate bid in all my years of watching Tory leadership contests. Even John Redwood’s various campaigns made more sense.
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.
His endpoint is. The idea put about by some ultras that the special military operation must end with the unconditional surrender of Russia is for the birds. Even talk of pre-2014 borders is absurd, even if some of us would like to see Ukraine compensated for the loss of Crimea so as to retrospectively make annexation legal-ish.
Suella’s bid for PM is laugh-out-loudable. I can’t remember a less appropriate bid in all my years of watching Tory leadership contests. Even John Redwood’s various campaigns made more sense.
Suella’s bid for PM is laugh-out-loudable. I can’t remember a less appropriate bid in all my years of watching Tory leadership contests. Even John Redwood’s various campaigns made more sense.
Suella’s bid for PM is laugh-out-loudable. I can’t remember a less appropriate bid in all my years of watching Tory leadership contests. Even John Redwood’s various campaigns made more sense.
Why is it ludicrous?
You've never seen or heard her then?
She's off-the-scale frootloop. In that cabinet thats really saying something.
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?
He'll still be the same, lying Boris, but I think his power has gone & personally I don't feel that bovvered about him remaining for another 6-8 weeks.
Basically, there is enormous inertia in the system, the Civil Service knows what to do and the wheels of government can run pretty efficiently with or without a PM.
The top guy is never that important.
If the railway drivers strike, then the trains don't run. If the CEO isn't there, no-one actually notices.
I was once a member of a Governing Body of an institution that suffered a year without a director or a bursar. It was actually the best year ever. The endowment of the institution increased by leaps and bounds with the absence of anyone directing the finances.
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 am sure an interim PM could permit that, as a gesture.
Exactly. Even to hold off occupying it at all so Boris can have it till the new leader takes over - the caretaker wouldn't want to move house for that short period anyway.
They cannot possible leave BoZo in post until October.
Specifically why not?
Because he remains an agent of chaos
He wasn’t very good as a PM I agree.
If he refused to go, starting a leadership election would have been nigh impossible. So there was a negotiation. And he has agreed to go “once new leader is found” the words Boris himself used.
Staying till next leader found is the most tidiest of solutions, is it not? is why it’s pretty much the norm.
All you are saying really is, he shouldn’t in your opinion be shown that respect. But I don’t see why not, for its measure of ourselves not him what respect we now show a lame duck place holder PM.
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.
Just quoting Corbyns twitter.
Do you have any Corbyn quotes backing Putins invasion? I would be interested to see.
Suella’s bid for PM is laugh-out-loudable. I can’t remember a less appropriate bid in all my years of watching Tory leadership contests. Even John Redwood’s various campaigns made more sense.
Why is it ludicrous?
You've never seen or heard her then?
She's off-the-scale frootloop. In that cabinet thats really saying something.
Yes I've seen and heard her, she seems like a typical Tory politician.
Suella’s bid for PM is laugh-out-loudable. I can’t remember a less appropriate bid in all my years of watching Tory leadership contests. Even John Redwood’s various campaigns made more sense.
Why is it ludicrous?
Actually, no matter how ludicrous Suella is ... she is not as ludicrous as Yvette Cooper.
Because Suella will actually campaign.
But Yvette Cooper stood for the leadership of the Labour party, went on holiday and forget to campaign.
Suella’s bid for PM is laugh-out-loudable. I can’t remember a less appropriate bid in all my years of watching Tory leadership contests. Even John Redwood’s various campaigns made more sense.
Its an interesting one. Presumably the basis for it is her extreme commitment to Brexit, together with the fact she is quite young. It won't do her that much harm as, if her campaign goes ok, she will probably get a decent cabinet job out of it, rather than the alternative option which is fading in to oblivion to be remembered as a Boris sycophant, which is the 'do nothing' option at this moment.
We are looking for the “least worst candidate” who can win support from ERG types.
I think Truss and Rishi are distrusted by the majority of their peers; I rule them out. Hunt, too. Zahawi totally self-immolated yesterday.
Who does that leave?
Javid - Seems to have integrity, good back story, but uninspiring and wasn’t there a non-dom issue?
Wallace, Mordaunt - both pretty much untested, could self-destruct on the campaign trail. Wallace would likely be a lose gracefully candidate; Mordaunt strikes me as having slightly odd judgement.
Tugendhat - Very slim chance; but anything’s possible if he somehow squared off the Brexiters.
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?
He'll still be the same, lying Boris, but I think his power has gone & personally I don't feel that bovvered about him remaining for another 6-8 weeks.
Basically, there is enormous inertia in the system, the Civil Service knows what to do and the wheels of government can run pretty efficiently with or without a PM.
The top guy is never that important.
If the railway drivers strike, then the trains don't run. If the CEO isn't there, no-one actually notices.
I was once a member of a Governing Body of an institution that suffered a year without a director or a bursar. It was actually the best year ever. The endowment of the institution increased by leaps and bounds with the absence of anyone directing the finances.
The top guy hardly ever matters.
After 9/11, the oil company I worked for commissioned a report on the effects of the potential destruction of various facilities.
The consultancy who did the report were honest fools.
In their report they assessed the effect of the destruction of the HQ and everything and everyone in it as zero - operations and profits would be unaffected.
The people sitting on the top floor of the HQ in question binned the report as unsatisfactory….
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.
That requires a VONC to show he no longer has the confidence of the House.
Suella’s bid for PM is laugh-out-loudable. I can’t remember a less appropriate bid in all my years of watching Tory leadership contests. Even John Redwood’s various campaigns made more sense.
Why is it ludicrous?
Are you being serious? She wouldn't get a job as a conveyancer in Stockport
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.
Just quoting Corbyns twitter.
Do you have any Corbyn quotes backing Putins invasion? I would be interested to see.
He said that NATO's "attempt to encircle Russia is one of the big threats of our time" which implicitly puts the blame on the West.
Suella’s bid for PM is laugh-out-loudable. I can’t remember a less appropriate bid in all my years of watching Tory leadership contests. Even John Redwood’s various campaigns made more sense.
Why is it ludicrous?
You've never seen or heard her then?
She's off-the-scale frootloop. In that cabinet thats really saying something.
Her level of stupidity and incompetence would be a gift to Starmer.
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 am sure an interim PM could permit that, as a gesture.
Exactly. Even to hold off occupying it at all so Boris can have it till the new leader takes over - the caretaker wouldn't want to move house for that short period anyway.
I think (apart from the optics of a deposed PM using Chequers for his party - parties not exactly a positive word in relation to him - for free and really rubbing the public’s noses in it) it’s not up to an interim PM or anyone to decide that people can just use it for shits and giggles. I think it’s owned in trust with rules in place about its use.
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.
Just quoting Corbyns twitter.
Do you have any Corbyn quotes backing Putins invasion? I would be interested to see.
He said that NATO's "attempt to encircle Russia is one of the big threats of our time" which implicitly puts the blame on the West.
Yes, but he has never supported the Russian invasion, whatever he thinks about the roots of the conflict.
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.
Commiserations to anyone who backed Starmer as next PM after Johnson.
Nah. Was never on.
I think Starmer could well be in trouble now, particularly against Mordaunt. I don't know much of Mordaunt, but she looks and sounds very impressive. A male pale and stale LoTO against an attractive intelligent female PM (the third female Conservative PM) would not be a good look for Labour.
I think it could be Mordaunt. The members are always looking for a Thatcher replacement.
We are looking for the “least worst candidate” who can win support from ERG types.
I think Truss and Rishi are distrusted by the majority of their peers; I rule them out. Hunt, too. Zahawi totally self-immolated yesterday.
Who does that leave?
Javid - Seems to have integrity, good back story, but uninspiring and wasn’t there a non-dom issue?
Wallace, Mordaunt - both pretty much untested, could self-destruct on the campaign trail. Wallace would likely be a lose gracefully candidate; Mordaunt strikes me as having slightly odd judgement.
Tugendhat - Very slim chance; but anything’s possible if he somehow squared off the Brexiters.
Yes, but however unlikely and however unsuitable, there will be a next Prime Minister.
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.
Just quoting Corbyns twitter.
Do you have any Corbyn quotes backing Putins invasion? I would be interested to see.
He said that NATO's "attempt to encircle Russia is one of the big threats of our time" which implicitly puts the blame on the West.
Yes, but he has never supported the Russian invasion, whatever he thinks about the roots of the conflict.
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.
Just quoting Corbyns twitter.
Do you have any Corbyn quotes backing Putins invasion? I would be interested to see.
He said that NATO's "attempt to encircle Russia is one of the big threats of our time" which implicitly puts the blame on the West.
Yes, but he has never supported the Russian invasion, whatever he thinks about the roots of the conflict.
Robert Buckland, new Secretary of state for Wales, tells me the cabinet established today that Boris Johnson will serve as a caretaker PM after cabinet government asserted itself. Full exchange later on @BBCNewsnight Twitter feed https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1545060380040302601
Commiserations to anyone who backed Starmer as next PM after Johnson.
Nah. Was never on.
I think Starmer could well be in trouble now, particularly against Mordaunt. I don't know much of Mordaunt, but she looks and sounds very impressive. A male pale and stale LoTO against an attractive intelligent female PM (the third female Conservative PM) would not be a good look for Labour.
I think it could be Mordaunt. The members are always looking for a Thatcher replacement.
As I have said before it is a curse that female Tory leadership candidates are always billed as the new Maggie, but it certainly does get the juices flowing of Tory men of a certain age.
With Liar gone, the red Red Wall has gone too. Will the new PM be able to stop the rot in the Blue Wall?
Tories are screwed. Johnson was by far your best hope.
That might be true. You do get some looney tunes from odd places saying they love Boris but now that he's gone and Starmer has ruled out the EU as things deteriorate in the economy I wonder whether the anti Tory vote might split between Labour and a pro EU party.
Commiserations to anyone who backed Starmer as next PM after Johnson.
Nah. Was never on.
I think Starmer could well be in trouble now, particularly against Mordaunt. I don't know much of Mordaunt, but she looks and sounds very impressive. A male pale and stale LoTO against an attractive intelligent female PM (the third female Conservative PM) would not be a good look for Labour.
I think it could be Mordaunt. The members are always looking for a Thatcher replacement.
I think Mordaunt is a couple of strong policy speeches away from this. Depending on what those policies are.
Commiserations to anyone who backed Starmer as next PM after Johnson.
Nah. Was never on.
I think Starmer could well be in trouble now, particularly against Mordaunt. I don't know much of Mordaunt, but she looks and sounds very impressive. A male pale and stale LoTO against an attractive intelligent female PM (the third female Conservative PM) would not be a good look for Labour.
I think it could be Mordaunt. The members are always looking for a Thatcher replacement.
As I have said before it is a curse that female Tory leadership candidates are always billed as the new Maggie, but it certainly does get the juices flowing of Tory men of a certain age.
I am heavily green on her.
We'll know she is serious when she starts wearing fur hats.
If someone had said in 1939 that "While I don't support their invasion, Germany wanting to undo the unjustness of losing territory to Poland post-WW1 was the key reason this has happened", do you not think they may have been considered an appeaser at best?
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.
Just quoting Corbyns twitter.
Do you have any Corbyn quotes backing Putins invasion? I would be interested to see.
He said that NATO's "attempt to encircle Russia is one of the big threats of our time" which implicitly puts the blame on the West.
Yes, but he has never supported the Russian invasion, whatever he thinks about the roots of the conflict.
There really are several issues for consideration. Betting, what's good for the country, how will this obstacle race pan out, who can beat Labour, what on earth inscrutably motivates the MPs and membership with their apparent collective insanity and desire to court destruction. (The MPs voted to keep Boris on a few weeks ago when he was obviously finished).
I don't think anyone at about 3/1 is value at the moment. (Wallace).
Worth a look: Mordaunt; the only appointable woman.
Hunt and Tugendhat: If two thirds of the MPs said "Let's only send to the membership candidates who are moderate, untainted by Boris and sane" these two are the only choices. they are either both in with a chance or neither (I hoper for both).
Baker: If the MPs and party continue their collective nervous breakdown he's just the chap to come through. Emigrate with your winnings.
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
I still don't buy this 'like Thatcher' stuff. They won in 1992, and do they really think if they had not ditched Thatcher they would have continued to win in 1997 and onwards? Nothing is impossible, but winning 5+ in a row ain't easy.
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.
That's going back rather a long way.
Point being if they want someone to serve for a short period, they can do so - they'll call it caretaker PM even though that won't be what it is officially.
Heck, people called Raab Deputy PM long before he actually was Deputy PM, because he was effectively Deputy PM.
Tory MPs queueing up to deliver the eulogies after stabbing him in the back... The chutzpah is incredible.
Someone here yesterday came up with the perfect epitaph for Boris:
Got the big calls right, treated the small calls with utter contempt.
Got the biggest call (Brexit) wrong. Treated the voters with utter contempt.
Implementing the biggest democratic vote in British history is treating the voters with utter contempt? OK then...
Lied to them to win the Brexit vote. Lied to them in 2019 about his deal. Lied to them about levelling up. Lied to them about 40 new hospitals. Lied in the house of commons. Lied to the cabinet. Yeah, he's treated the voters, actually our entire democratic system, with contempt. Good riddance.
You said "Got the biggest call (Brexit) wrong". But it's the alternative to this (ignoring the vote and remaining in the EU anyway as advocated by SKS) is what would have been treating the voters with contempt.
Boris's negatives far outweigh his positives - but he did have positives.
Johnson's lies duringwinning the Brexit campaign was what put us in the dire position of either inflicting a costly policy error on the economy or damaging trust in our democracy. There was no good outcome from there, but it was Johnson who put us there. We should have implemented a soft Brexit but that was blocked by May's red lines and the Tories whipping against those options in the Commons. And Johnson doesn't even believe in Brexit, the whole thing is simply a testimony to his infinite vanity and ambition.
FTFY. And again, it's not just that Leave won, but that Cameron had refused to allow planning for what a Leave vote would mean.
This just looks like an attempt to evade responsibility, like we saw with some lefties last night. If you put Corbyn up against Boris, you have to take some of the blame for the public seeing the latter as the lesser of two evils. Similarly, if you spent 25 years stopping the public having any say on the European Project beginning with Maastricht, leaving only the nuclear button available to the public, you can't blame them for pushing it.
I criticised Labour for choosing Corbyn as leader on here yesterday and repeatedly in the past. It was a disastrously stupid thing to do. I voted against him as leader twice. We gave the public every opportunity to vote against what you call the European Project, in the usual way of a parliamentary democracy. What was UKIP's top vote share in a Westminster election? Referenda are a poor way of doing politics, they attract every kind of protest vote and dishonest campaigning hence you end up with a vote for a Brexit that meant different things to different people, that nobody could implement in the way it was sold, which has made us all poorer, and which the public no longer support. It has been a total disaster, leaving us divided and weak. And Boris Johnson was the one who got it over the line. So no, I don't believe he got the big calls right.
When were the public given an opportunity to vote against the European Project?
Do you mean 2010 when the Lib Dems were elected on a manifesto promising a referendum, which they then opposed holding.
Do you mean 2005 when the Lib Dems, Labour and Conservatives were all elected on a manifesto promising a referendum, which Labour then refused to hold?
2015 was the third General Election in a row where MPs were elected on a promise to hold a referendum. It wasn't some novel idea invented by Cameron.
Labour promised to hold a referendum on the European constitution. The European constitution was abandoned after other countries voted it down. So the UK didn't hold a referendum on it.
Renamed. Not abandoned.
Renamed, solely to avoid to the commitment to a referendum on it.
Robert Buckland, new Secretary of state for Wales, tells me the cabinet established today that Boris Johnson will serve as a caretaker PM after cabinet government asserted itself. Full exchange later on @BBCNewsnight Twitter feed https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1545060380040302601
How nice of the Cabinet to establish that for everyone. It isn't necessarily going to be their choice.
If someone had said in 1939 that "While I don't support their invasion, Germany wanting to undo the unjustness of losing territory to Poland post-WW1 was the key reason this has happened", do you not think they may have been considered an appeaser at best?
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.
Just quoting Corbyns twitter.
Do you have any Corbyn quotes backing Putins invasion? I would be interested to see.
He said that NATO's "attempt to encircle Russia is one of the big threats of our time" which implicitly puts the blame on the West.
Yes, but he has never supported the Russian invasion, whatever he thinks about the roots of the conflict.
Factually correct though, that was Hitler's motivation.
Appeasement was a popular policy of the Conservative government of the Thirties of course, and widely believed to be justified.
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 am sure an interim PM could permit that, as a gesture.
Exactly. Even to hold off occupying it at all so Boris can have it till the new leader takes over - the caretaker wouldn't want to move house for that short period anyway.
I think (apart from the optics of a deposed PM using Chequers for his party - parties not exactly a positive word in relation to him - for free and really rubbing the public’s noses in it) it’s not up to an interim PM or anyone to decide that people can just use it for shits and giggles. I think it’s owned in trust with rules in place about its use.
Yes but who cares. Use of grace-and-favour apartments has been fudged in the past and if a free wedding bash is the price we pay for landing our Raab/May bets getting rid of Boris, it is a small one.
Robert Buckland, new Secretary of state for Wales, tells me the cabinet established today that Boris Johnson will serve as a caretaker PM after cabinet government asserted itself. Full exchange later on @BBCNewsnight Twitter feed https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1545060380040302601
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 am sure an interim PM could permit that, as a gesture.
Exactly. Even to hold off occupying it at all so Boris can have it till the new leader takes over - the caretaker wouldn't want to move house for that short period anyway.
I think (apart from the optics of a deposed PM using Chequers for his party - parties not exactly a positive word in relation to him - for free and really rubbing the public’s noses in it) it’s not up to an interim PM or anyone to decide that people can just use it for shits and giggles. I think it’s owned in trust with rules in place about its use.
"Sources." Daily Mirror. This is pure fantasy and designed to get the boris hating juices flowing.
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?
He'll still be the same, lying Boris, but I think his power has gone & personally I don't feel that bovvered about him remaining for another 6-8 weeks.
Basically, there is enormous inertia in the system, the Civil Service knows what to do and the wheels of government can run pretty efficiently with or without a PM.
The top guy is never that important.
If the railway drivers strike, then the trains don't run. If the CEO isn't there, no-one actually notices.
I was once a member of a Governing Body of an institution that suffered a year without a director or a bursar. It was actually the best year ever. The endowment of the institution increased by leaps and bounds with the absence of anyone directing the finances.
The top guy hardly ever matters.
After 9/11, the oil company I worked for commissioned a report on the effects of the potential destruction of various facilities.
The consultancy who did the report were honest fools.
In their report they assessed the effect of the destruction of the HQ and everything and everyone in it as zero - operations and profits would be unaffected.
The people sitting on the top floor of the HQ in question binned the report as unsatisfactory….
I saw a youtube video where Carl Icahn spoke about this and he did actually fire 12 floors worth of office staff he felt offered little value after his acquisition of ACF.
Interesting coming a little later to the comments here how down folk seem on Zahawi ('self-immolated' etc.) - tbh I'd think he's gone full Wambsgans and established himself as a serious player, and a ruthless one at that.
Coupled with the fact that he is a legitimately competent administrator with a reasonably compelling story (and, by reputation, quite affable/likeable). I don't expect him to win, but I can imagine him garnering kingmaking support as a third- or fourth-placed candidate.
You can just as readily say that Corbyn lost Labour the election.
But it's hopeless trying to convince the cultists of Boris Johnson's toxicity and it no longer matters. He is about to be an irrelevance to the entire world.
The numbers guy has done the numbers and realised nobody has them, perhaps!
Shapps is a good media performer but will never escape that rather shady business about fake online personas. Which he denied, in the face of pretty conclusive evidence. I think even the Tory Party are done with known liars for a period.
Robert Buckland, new Secretary of state for Wales, tells me the cabinet established today that Boris Johnson will serve as a caretaker PM after cabinet government asserted itself. Full exchange later on @BBCNewsnight Twitter feed https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1545060380040302601
In office, but out of power.
From Big Dog to Lame Duck in 48 hours.
For the love of God why, none of the reasons anyone has given have gone away. This just debases the Tory party and the office of PM even more.
Interesting coming a little later to the comments here how down folk seem on Zahawi ('self-immolated' etc.) - tbh I'd think he's gone full Wambsgans and established himself as a serious player, and a ruthless one at that.
Coupled with the fact that he is a legitimately competent administrator with a reasonably compelling story (and, by reputation, quite affable/likeable). I don't expect him to win, but I can imagine him garnering kingmaking support as a third- or fourth-placed candidate.
Thing is I have always thought he *looked* like a snake. Acting like one as well is overdoing it.
Having purged the BoZo mayhem, the Tories will return to competent government and take the fight to their external opponents.
Having defenestrated the greatest leader in history (sic) the Tories are heading for decades in the wilderness
Discuss...
The Tory Party needs to know what it actually stands for first before it can even think of moving on.
Those who defend Johnson and his electoral success nearly three years ago fail to realise that an electoral winner one year can be electoral poison a few years later.
Commiserations to anyone who backed Starmer as next PM after Johnson.
Nah. Was never on.
I think Starmer could well be in trouble now, particularly against Mordaunt. I don't know much of Mordaunt, but she looks and sounds very impressive. A male pale and stale LoTO against an attractive intelligent female PM (the third female Conservative PM) would not be a good look for Labour.
I think it could be Mordaunt. The members are always looking for a Thatcher replacement.
On one plausible analysis she is favourite. This is the argument. The next PM will either be a man or a woman.
The modern Tory party is an equal opportunity outfit.
At least if there is a woman it is less likely we repeat some of the worst aspects of Toryism.
She is the only appointable woman. So about even money.
Interesting coming a little later to the comments here how down folk seem on Zahawi ('self-immolated' etc.) - tbh I'd think he's gone full Wambsgans and established himself as a serious player, and a ruthless one at that.
Coupled with the fact that he is a legitimately competent administrator with a reasonably compelling story (and, by reputation, quite affable/likeable). I don't expect him to win, but I can imagine him garnering kingmaking support as a third- or fourth-placed candidate.
He was the right choice for 2019, got Brexit done and got an eighty seat majority.
Its past time for him to go, but if the next leader is half as successful, they'll have done well.
"done"
The NI mess is just one of the turds left on the parquet floor of No. 10 for the successor to clean up.
There are always turds afterwards, for anything done.
Churchill got WWII done, the fact that we had a battered economy afterwards and needed the Marshall Scheme afterwards didn't mean that WWII wasn't over.
Interesting coming a little later to the comments here how down folk seem on Zahawi ('self-immolated' etc.) - tbh I'd think he's gone full Wambsgans and established himself as a serious player, and a ruthless one at that.
Coupled with the fact that he is a legitimately competent administrator with a reasonably compelling story (and, by reputation, quite affable/likeable). I don't expect him to win, but I can imagine him garnering kingmaking support as a third- or fourth-placed candidate.
Thing is I have always thought he *looked* like a snake. Acting like one as well is overdoing it.
Having purged the BoZo mayhem, the Tories will return to competent government and take the fight to their external opponents.
Having defenestrated the greatest leader in history (sic) the Tories are heading for decades in the wilderness
Discuss...
You missed an option "Having failed to purge the BoZo mayhem, the Tories will return to incompetent government because the same fool is in charge and the people who told him he must go are back in his Cabinet"
With Liar gone, the red Red Wall has gone too. Will the new PM be able to stop the rot in the Blue Wall?
Tories are screwed. Johnson was by far your best hope.
That might be true. You do get some looney tunes from odd places saying they love Boris but now that he's gone and Starmer has ruled out the EU as things deteriorate in the economy I wonder whether the anti Tory vote might split between Labour and a pro EU party.
One of the funny things about remainers is the way that the global inflation crisis isn't happening in their beloved holy land.
Energy prices aren't rocketing, the far right isn't making advances, growth isn't seizing up, the currency isn't weak, the central bank isn't powerless and the region isn't beholden to gas supplies from a crazed warmonger.
Remainers are a bit like an estate agent that hasn't checked the property they want to sell you recently.
It used to be really nice but its been on the market for ages.
Now there's subsidence, rising damp, the roof leaks, it needs new plumbing and the garden is overgrown. Why aren't you putting in an offer?
Interesting coming a little later to the comments here how down folk seem on Zahawi ('self-immolated' etc.) - tbh I'd think he's gone full Wambsgans and established himself as a serious player, and a ruthless one at that.
Coupled with the fact that he is a legitimately competent administrator with a reasonably compelling story (and, by reputation, quite affable/likeable). I don't expect him to win, but I can imagine him garnering kingmaking support as a third- or fourth-placed candidate.
Thing is I have always thought he *looked* like a snake. Acting like one as well is overdoing it.
Having purged the BoZo mayhem, the Tories will return to competent government and take the fight to their external opponents.
Having defenestrated the greatest leader in history (sic) the Tories are heading for decades in the wilderness
Discuss...
The Tory Party needs to know what it actually stands for first before it can even think of moving on.
Those who defend Johnson and his electoral success nearly three years ago fail to realise that an electoral winner one year can be electoral poison a few years later.
It is all fluid at the moment as Labour are in similar policy limbo.
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.
OK - recently she has been too obviously playing at being the next Maggie. I like ambition but in her it has felt inauthentic in the sense of wanting the job in order to be PM rather than in order to achieve something.
Why does she want the job? What does she want to do with it? When she speaks about this it feels to me like empty-headed slogans, a series of cliches, rather than anything thought through and felt.
I liked how she went about the Equalities brief because I felt she had though through the issues and tried to come up with a sensible practical compromise. And she also did it quietly without seeking to weaponise it.
I don't know what she stands for. I worry that she is going to appeal to the worst aspects of the Tory membership if it will get her the job regardless of whether it works or is in the best interests of the country ie that we get Boris in a dress.
I may be wrong on that. She is cunning and a survivor. But she has seemed out of her depth as Foreign Secretary and too inclined to play to the gallery.
Really, what I want is a leader who is going to be honest about the problems we face and how we are going to have to deal with them. I do not see many politicians willing to do that. And I see too many who are more interested in being PM than in using that power for a purpose. And far too many whose thinking amounts to a stream of off the shelf cliches and slogans which a moderately intelligent 15-year old could easily pull apart.
Interesting coming a little later to the comments here how down folk seem on Zahawi ('self-immolated' etc.) - tbh I'd think he's gone full Wambsgans and established himself as a serious player, and a ruthless one at that.
Coupled with the fact that he is a legitimately competent administrator with a reasonably compelling story (and, by reputation, quite affable/likeable). I don't expect him to win, but I can imagine him garnering kingmaking support as a third- or fourth-placed candidate.
You are Nadhim Zahawi and I claim my inflation-adjusted £5
I still think, although it appears the Tory Party do not agree, that an interim PMship would be the best thing for the country, specifically Theresa May, as Raab is transparently a duffer.
The next leader should be someone who has plausible responses to questions about the economic situation, Ukraine, and Northern Ireland. It’s not good if it is rushed.
Having purged the BoZo mayhem, the Tories will return to competent government and take the fight to their external opponents.
Having defenestrated the greatest leader in history (sic) the Tories are heading for decades in the wilderness
Discuss...
To return the Tories to competent government requires a level of honesty that is likely to be politically toxic, and also require a major purge of the current cabinet, as they are pretty much nonentities or incompetent.
Honesty over the economy and government finances is not compatible with the tax cutting that the candidates will trumpet.
Interesting coming a little later to the comments here how down folk seem on Zahawi ('self-immolated' etc.) - tbh I'd think he's gone full Wambsgans and established himself as a serious player, and a ruthless one at that.
Coupled with the fact that he is a legitimately competent administrator with a reasonably compelling story (and, by reputation, quite affable/likeable). I don't expect him to win, but I can imagine him garnering kingmaking support as a third- or fourth-placed candidate.
Thing is I have always thought he *looked* like a snake. Acting like one as well is overdoing it.
Zahawi looks like a contract killer.
good point
In a film where he has retired at the top of his game, but gets blackmailed into doing one last job
With Liar gone, the red Red Wall has gone too. Will the new PM be able to stop the rot in the Blue Wall?
Tories are screwed. Johnson was by far your best hope.
That might be true. You do get some looney tunes from odd places saying they love Boris but now that he's gone and Starmer has ruled out the EU as things deteriorate in the economy I wonder whether the anti Tory vote might split between Labour and a pro EU party.
One of the funny things about remainers is the way that the global inflation crisis isn't happening in their beloved holy land.
Energy prices aren't rocketing, the far right isn't making advances, growth isn't seizing up, the currency isn't weak, the central bank isn't powerless and the region isn't beholden to gas supplies from a crazed warmonger.
Remainers are a bit like an estate agent that hasn't checked the property they want to sell you recently.
It used to be really nice but its been on the market for ages.
Now there's subsidence, rising damp, the roof leaks, it needs new plumbing and the garden is overgrown. Why aren't you putting in an offer?
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.
Just quoting Corbyns twitter.
Do you have any Corbyn quotes backing Putins invasion? I would be interested to see.
He said that NATO's "attempt to encircle Russia is one of the big threats of our time" which implicitly puts the blame on the West.
Has Corbyn actually said NATO is trying to “encircle” Russia? If so, I have a map he can borrow.
Interesting coming a little later to the comments here how down folk seem on Zahawi ('self-immolated' etc.) - tbh I'd think he's gone full Wambsgans and established himself as a serious player, and a ruthless one at that.
Coupled with the fact that he is a legitimately competent administrator with a reasonably compelling story (and, by reputation, quite affable/likeable). I don't expect him to win, but I can imagine him garnering kingmaking support as a third- or fourth-placed candidate.
Yay, a Succession reference.
Yay! I am back 🙂
You have been handling all this very well TSE in your inimitable style - headers like a Carry On Newsnight.
He was the right choice for 2019, got Brexit done and got an eighty seat majority.
Its past time for him to go, but if the next leader is half as successful, they'll have done well.
"done"
The NI mess is just one of the turds left on the parquet floor of No. 10 for the successor to clean up.
There are always turds afterwards, for anything done.
Churchill got WWII done, the fact that we had a battered economy afterwards and needed the Marshall Scheme afterwards didn't mean that WWII wasn't over.
Depending on who it is, I can see the EU offering a far better NI solution to the successor than Boris would have got, as part of resetting the relationship.
Comments
Look - I'm not saying she or others lack attractive qualities or would be bad PMs. I'm simply - in terms of betting predictions - saying that MPs are going to be worried about putting someone in who MIGHT be good but is somewhat untested. I think there will be a strong bias towards known quantities.
Tories are screwed. Johnson was by far your best hope.
I can’t remember a less appropriate bid in all my years of watching Tory leadership contests. Even John Redwood’s various campaigns made more sense.
Told Boris Johnson planning to start filling junior ministerial vacancies later today
MPs Refusing to Accept Ministerial Posts Unless Caretaker PM Appointed https://order-order.com/2022/07/07/mps-refusing-to-accept-ministerial-posts-unless-caretaker-pm-appointed https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1545056589375148033/photo/1
She's off-the-scale frootloop. In that cabinet thats really saying something.
Basically, there is enormous inertia in the system, the Civil Service knows what to do and the wheels of government can run pretty efficiently with or without a PM.
The top guy is never that important.
If the railway drivers strike, then the trains don't run. If the CEO isn't there, no-one actually notices.
I was once a member of a Governing Body of an institution that suffered a year without a director or a bursar. It was actually the best year ever. The endowment of the institution increased by leaps and bounds with the absence of anyone directing the finances.
The top guy hardly ever matters.
If he refused to go, starting a leadership election would have been nigh impossible. So there was a negotiation. And he has agreed to go “once new leader is found” the words Boris himself used.
Staying till next leader found is the most tidiest of solutions, is it not? is why it’s pretty much the norm.
All you are saying really is, he shouldn’t in your opinion be shown that respect. But I don’t see why not, for its measure of ourselves not him what respect we now show a lame duck place holder PM.
Do you have any Corbyn quotes backing Putins invasion? I would be interested to see.
Because Suella will actually campaign.
But Yvette Cooper stood for the leadership of the Labour party, went on holiday and forget to campaign.
And so she lost, unsurprisingly. To Corbyn.
I think Truss and Rishi are distrusted by the majority of their peers; I rule them out. Hunt, too. Zahawi totally self-immolated yesterday.
Who does that leave?
Javid - Seems to have integrity, good back story, but uninspiring and wasn’t there a non-dom issue?
Wallace, Mordaunt - both pretty much untested, could self-destruct on the campaign trail. Wallace would likely be a lose gracefully candidate; Mordaunt strikes me as having slightly odd judgement.
Tugendhat - Very slim chance; but anything’s possible if he somehow squared off the Brexiters.
After 9/11, the oil company I worked for commissioned a report on the effects of the potential destruction of various facilities.
The consultancy who did the report were honest fools.
In their report they assessed the effect of the destruction of the HQ and everything and everyone in it as zero - operations and profits would be unaffected.
The people sitting on the top floor of the HQ in question binned the report as unsatisfactory….
https://inews.co.uk/news/housing/political-drama-real-world-consequences-unsafe-tower-block-1729749I…
https://twitter.com/Victoria_Spratt/status/1545056625332871171
But politically, they can't afford not to.
Its past time for him to go, but if the next leader is half as successful, they'll have done well.
https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1545060380040302601
The NI mess is just one of the turds left on the parquet floor of No. 10 for the successor to clean up.
I am heavily green on her.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1636812/Dominic-Cummings-Boris-Johnson-resign-reaction-statement-today-autumn-PM-updates
I don't think anyone at about 3/1 is value at the moment. (Wallace).
Worth a look: Mordaunt; the only appointable woman.
Hunt and Tugendhat: If two thirds of the MPs said "Let's only send to the membership candidates who are moderate, untainted by Boris and sane" these two are the only choices. they are either both in with a chance or neither (I hoper for both).
Baker: If the MPs and party continue their collective nervous breakdown he's just the chap to come through. Emigrate with your winnings.
Heck, people called Raab Deputy PM long before he actually was Deputy PM, because he was effectively Deputy PM.
Conservative councillor Daniel Cook told Channel 4 News Mr Pincher, who has been suspended by the Tory party, had groped him in 2005 and 2006.
Mr Cook, deputy mayor at Tamworth council in Staffordshire, where Mr Pincher is an MP, said he had lodged a complaint with the Conservative Party.
The BBC understands that Mr Pincher strongly denies any such conduct."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-62072352
Appeasement was a popular policy of the Conservative government of the Thirties of course, and widely believed to be justified.
landing our Raab/May betsgetting rid of Boris, it is a small one.From Big Dog to Lame Duck in 48 hours.
It succeeds, especially with that Galadriel pic
Coupled with the fact that he is a legitimately competent administrator with a reasonably compelling story (and, by reputation, quite affable/likeable). I don't expect him to win, but I can imagine him garnering kingmaking support as a third- or fourth-placed candidate.
Guido has Berry and Baker, but not Tugendhat, as "declared".
Having purged the BoZo mayhem, the Tories will return to competent government and take the fight to their external opponents.
Having defenestrated the greatest leader in history (sic) the Tories are heading for decades in the wilderness
Discuss...
But it's hopeless trying to convince the cultists of Boris Johnson's toxicity and it no longer matters. He is about to be an irrelevance to the entire world.
Shapps is a good media performer but will never escape that rather shady business about fake online personas. Which he denied, in the face of pretty conclusive evidence. I think even the Tory Party are done with known liars for a period.
Is he running?
I doubt he’ll get it, though, even if he is.
They need to lance the boil now, not later.
I don’t think anyone is especially happy with that, save perhaps Zahawi.
https://www.euronews.com/2022/07/07/uk-britain-politics-conservatives
Those who defend Johnson and his electoral success nearly three years ago fail to realise that an electoral winner one year can be electoral poison a few years later.
The modern Tory party is an equal opportunity outfit.
At least if there is a woman it is less likely we repeat some of the worst aspects of Toryism.
She is the only appointable woman. So about even money.
Yay, a Succession reference.
Churchill got WWII done, the fact that we had a battered economy afterwards and needed the Marshall Scheme afterwards didn't mean that WWII wasn't over.
Shame.
One of the funny things about remainers is the way that the global inflation crisis isn't happening in their beloved holy land.
Energy prices aren't rocketing, the far right isn't making advances, growth isn't seizing up, the currency isn't weak, the central bank isn't powerless and the region isn't beholden to gas supplies from a crazed warmonger.
Remainers are a bit like an estate agent that hasn't checked the property they want to sell you recently.
It used to be really nice but its been on the market for ages.
Now there's subsidence, rising damp, the roof leaks, it needs new plumbing and the garden is overgrown. Why aren't you putting in an offer?
Why does she want the job? What does she want to do with it? When she speaks about this it feels to me like empty-headed slogans, a series of cliches, rather than anything thought through and felt.
I liked how she went about the Equalities brief because I felt she had though through the issues and tried to come up with a sensible practical compromise. And she also did it quietly without seeking to weaponise it.
I don't know what she stands for. I worry that she is going to appeal to the worst aspects of the Tory membership if it will get her the job regardless of whether it works or is in the best interests of the country ie that we get Boris in a dress.
I may be wrong on that. She is cunning and a survivor. But she has seemed out of her depth as Foreign Secretary and too inclined to play to the gallery.
Really, what I want is a leader who is going to be honest about the problems we face and how we are going to have to deal with them. I do not see many politicians willing to do that. And I see too many who are more interested in being PM than in using that power for a purpose. And far too many whose thinking amounts to a stream of off the shelf cliches and slogans which a moderately intelligent 15-year old could easily pull apart.
The next leader should be someone who has plausible responses to questions about the economic situation, Ukraine, and Northern Ireland. It’s not good if it is rushed.
Honesty over the economy and government finances is not compatible with the tax cutting that the candidates will trumpet.
In a film where he has retired at the top of his game, but gets blackmailed into doing one last job
The same advice would work for Mr Shapps.....
You have been handling all this very well TSE in your inimitable style - headers like a Carry On Newsnight.
But how is the Day Job looking?