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
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 succeeds, especially with that Galadriel pic
It is not pure fantasy. The big Chequers bash has been on the cards since their Covid-limited wedding last year. And frankly, who cares?
Yes - the push now is to get this process done quickly- MPs vote within two weeks and a proposal is likely to be made for a new leader BEFORE MPs return in September 👇https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1545045994051497984
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.
Another incompetent fantasist and liar.
No. Just no. Read that Nick Cohen article I posted.
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
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.
Not necessarily - if Tory MPs went on a vote strike so the government couldn’t get legislation through then that would demonstrate he no longer commanded the confidence of the house.
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.
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.
No, because the Tory core vote are increasingly elderly, well-off folk who want everything for free, pension increases bigger than wage rises and the young to work like slaves to finance their free healthcare.
The other parties realise that the Boomer geriatric brigade are not a long term strategy
Ben Wallace vs Penny Mordaunt would probably be a close run thing with the members.
I think Wallace would win fairly easily unless he slips up. In the cold light of day, the fact he didn't resign - not because he was a BJ toady but probably out of a sense of duty - will stand him in good stead. He has also had a "good" war and he would probably do a half-decent job of uniting the wings.
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.
Thanks for the thought out reply.
Interesting that you think she was out of her depth as Foreign Secretary. She seemed to be much calmer and more responsible about it than Raab, or many of her predecessors in recent years, and in quite challenging circumstances too.
On the two issues we've had, NI and Ukraine, she seems to have handled both adroitly in ways that have been generally respected. Almost everyone seems united that Ukraine has been handled as well as it could be and like you said about her equalities brief, she seemed to think through the NI issues and came up with a proposed solution that was quite reasonable and in general addressed concerns sensibly. Even staunch critics like Gardenwalker and others here said that her proposals there were good, even if the way of going about it was disliked. I expect that if she were to win the leadership a compromise would be reached along the lines of what she's proposed with the EU.
I agree that she's cunning and a survivor - and like Gove she's one of the few Cabinet Ministers (of any party) who seems to genuinely think through the issues she's handling and how to resolve them, whether that be equalities or foreign relations. That seems to me to be a good positive.
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
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.
We are talking about 8 weeks Gardenwalker? He’s been freeloading and dereliction of duty three years, another 8 weeks makes little difference now.
He doesn’t plan to stand, but if his friends and colleagues were to force his hand…
Gove said after losing in 2019 that he would not stand again. Although as you suggest, if a Jim Hacker-style compromise candidate were called for, however reluctantly... But realistically, no, we can take him at his word.
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.
Bizarre post. None of the candidates fulfil what you say. No politician for that matter or at least no politician in government is going to be "honest about the problems we face".
Or does a dark suit and tie make someone more credible?
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.
Were Boris and his junta respected by senior civil servants? Just asking.....
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.
Quite. It's one thing to leave turds lying around and quite another for the successor to have to accept help publicily in clearing up the mess.
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...
Okay. 🙂
Psephological Post. I don’t think this is remotely straightforward for the Conservatives from here. Yes, red wall areas have been trending Tory for a while, in much same way metropolitan areas trending away from them actually, some once Tory seats in the metropolitan areas looking lost for the moment, whereas the Red Wall is not Tory as yet, more like a bell weather battle ground.
And yes, Boris won big last time, but as per polling Mike keeps sharing here showing Corbyn as opponent was big factor in the win.
However, and I think this is fair psephology, HY has been right all along, Boris picked up votes from across the voting spectrum and outside it for being Brand Boris, this charismatic politician had unique and persuasive “can do” persona in order to sell the great change for better once we have Brexited and change for the better once levelling up done. I am convinced Boris is a hard act to follow as firstly I doubt any successor can match those vote winning qualities Boris had; and secondly, just how deliverable is “great change for better” from Brexit and Levelling Up, high skill high wages, Boris now hands on as the Tory brand?
Was Boris really a brexiteer, or opportunist? This is going to be much harder for the Conservatives from here than people think.
My prediction: Mordaunt will do well this time but won’t get through to the final 2. She will however bag herself a significant cabinet job and will be well poised to be the next leader after one.
Still can’t see beyond Wallace vs Truss, with the former probably getting it.
The reality as far as I can see it, away from the boosterism and whatever else of the candidates, if they don't do something about CoL and the economy, they are going to be very unpopular very quickly just as Brown was.
I have no doubt they'll get some kind of boost upon taking over - but none of them have offered any policies to help on the economy. And it is thirteen years of that they will be defending, the public will not be taken for fools twice.
Ben Wallace vs Penny Mordaunt would probably be a close run thing with the members.
Mordaunt would have the potential to bring back far more of the lost Blue Wallers - especially women - whilst having a colourful back story to appeal to Red Wallers. She's so far removed from your "typical Tory".
Imagine Wallace trying to get a hearing with Mumsnet. Nah, me neither.
FWIW, "Potential" is defined as "speculated about by the media as potential candidates". The reference for Barclay is https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60037657 - which is rather minimal. But unless he says something publicly one way or the other, he'll stay on the list...
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.
Trouble is the known quantities are, frankly, a bit shit.
I missed the resignation speech. The Huffington Post described it as 'graceless' which isn't surprising because one of the most notable things about him is that he IS graceless. Charmless and graceless. I don't think he'll be missed at all.
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...
I don't believe the outcome is quite that binary.
Your party still presided over Brexit chaos, and that will continue. The next Prime Minister also has the mother and father of an economic crisis to overcome.
Ben Wallace vs Penny Mordaunt would probably be a close run thing with the members.
Mordaunt would have the potential to bring back far more of the lost Blue Wallers - especially women - whilst having a colourful back story to appeal to Red Wallers. She's so far removed from your "typical Tory".
Imagine Wallace trying to get a hearing with Mumsnet. Nah, me neither.
Apparently she was pawned on there, so it was to no avail.
I actually think she's pretty woke on gender issues, which is unfortunate, but she's still the best candidate by a mile.
I missed the resignation speech. The Huffington Post described it as 'graceless' which isn't surprising because one of the most notable things about him is that he IS graceless. Charmless and graceless. I don't think he'll be missed at all.
No surprise, the PM is still struggling to fill the gaping holes in government. Guido hears he’s been ringing round former junior ministers and PPSs to offer more senior posts, although most are said to be making it clear they won’t serve in government unless a new caretaker PM is appointed. Which is, in theory, much easier now Dominic Raab has ruled himself out of the leadership running…
According to Guido’s sources, at least 5 backbench 2019ers have already refused ministerial posts today. Stay tuned to the live blog for updates…
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.
The three great achievements of Johnson's government that are repeatedly referred to, and no others, are Brexit, Vaccines and Ukraine. So it makes sense to consider the ministers most closely associated with those successes as having a head start.
That would presumably be Truss (Brexit trade deals), Zahawi (Vaccines) and Wallace (Ukraine).
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.
Another incompetent fantasist and liar.
No. Just no. Read that Nick Cohen article I posted.
Saying Suella Braverman should not win is not quite the same as saying she cannot win; after all, we were landed with a fantasist and liar just three years ago, although I suspect Braverman's aim is simply to get enough votes to establish her as a player.
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.
Thanks for the thought out reply.
Interesting that you think she was out of her depth as Foreign Secretary. She seemed to be much calmer and more responsible about it than Raab, or many of her predecessors in recent years, and in quite challenging circumstances too.
On the two issues we've had, NI and Ukraine, she seems to have handled both adroitly in ways that have been generally respected. Almost everyone seems united that Ukraine has been handled as well as it could be and like you said about her equalities brief, she seemed to think through the NI issues and came up with a proposed solution that was quite reasonable and in general addressed concerns sensibly. Even staunch critics like Gardenwalker and others here said that her proposals there were good, even if the way of going about it was disliked. I expect that if she were to win the leadership a compromise would be reached along the lines of what she's proposed with the EU.
I agree that she's cunning and a survivor - and like Gove she's one of the few Cabinet Ministers (of any party) who seems to genuinely think through the issues she's handling and how to resolve them, whether that be equalities or foreign relations. That seems to me to be a good positive.
You may be right. I would not be surprised to see her winning. She feels to me like an unknown quantity. But that is probably down to my ignorance. But while I was more positive about her in the past there is something about her now that makes me uneasy.
Ben Wallace vs Penny Mordaunt would probably be a close run thing with the members.
Mordaunt would have the potential to bring back far more of the lost Blue Wallers - especially women - whilst having a colourful back story to appeal to Red Wallers. She's so far removed from your "typical Tory".
Imagine Wallace trying to get a hearing with Mumsnet. Nah, me neither.
You are correct about Mordaunt, however she is not beyond a gaffe or two.
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.
With Raab not running I imagine he can chaperone Boris through the next couple of months. The most important task is to fill the ministerial gaps.
Having Raab as a short-term PM would probably be ok, but maybe not needed.
I also backed Bernard Jenkin in a couple of pounds this morning as a possible stand-in.
I missed the resignation speech. The Huffington Post described it as 'graceless' which isn't surprising because one of the most notable things about him is that he IS graceless. Charmless and graceless. I don't think he'll be missed at all.
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.
Thanks for the thought out reply.
Interesting that you think she was out of her depth as Foreign Secretary. She seemed to be much calmer and more responsible about it than Raab, or many of her predecessors in recent years, and in quite challenging circumstances too.
On the two issues we've had, NI and Ukraine, she seems to have handled both adroitly in ways that have been generally respected. Almost everyone seems united that Ukraine has been handled as well as it could be and like you said about her equalities brief, she seemed to think through the NI issues and came up with a proposed solution that was quite reasonable and in general addressed concerns sensibly. Even staunch critics like Gardenwalker and others here said that her proposals there were good, even if the way of going about it was disliked. I expect that if she were to win the leadership a compromise would be reached along the lines of what she's proposed with the EU.
I agree that she's cunning and a survivor - and like Gove she's one of the few Cabinet Ministers (of any party) who seems to genuinely think through the issues she's handling and how to resolve them, whether that be equalities or foreign relations. That seems to me to be a good positive.
You may be right. I would not be surprised to see her winning. She feels to me like an unknown quantity. But that is probably down to my ignorance. But while I was more positive about her in the past there is something about her now that makes me uneasy.
I don’t think she’s ideologically sound. But apart from that, her Thatcher cosplay has been as nauseating as Rishi’s self-branding efforts.
We are all fed up with narcissists, and she presents as one.
She also, and perhaps this shouldn’t matter, seems to have slept with half the parliamentary party.
Not sure just how big a factor Brexit will be in the leadership race .
Pre Brexit happening clearly being a Remainer was always going to be almost impossible to overcome .
Do the Tory membership want low taxes and a smaller state ? If that’s what they want then it’s going to be difficult to juggle that with keeping their northern seats .
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.
Bizarre post. None of the candidates fulfil what you say. No politician for that matter or at least no politician in government is going to be "honest about the problems we face".
Or does a dark suit and tie make someone more credible?
What a bizarre response. What have suits got to do with it?
We have had politicians in the past who have been honest about problems Thatcher for instance was frank about wanting to arrest Britain's decline and that this was not going to be easy.
We face a lot of problems. We are not even going to begin solving them if we don't recognise the mess we are in.
But, yeah, politicians prefer pandering to the fantasies of voters .... and so the mess gets worse.
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.
Bizarre post. None of the candidates fulfil what you say. No politician for that matter or at least no politician in government is going to be "honest about the problems we face".
Or does a dark suit and tie make someone more credible?
What a bizarre response. What have suits got to do with it?
We have had politicians in the past who have been honest about problems Thatcher for instance was frank about wanting to arrest Britain's decline and that this was not going to be easy.
We face a lot of problems. We are not even going to begin solving them if we don't recognise the mess we are in.
But, yeah, politicians prefer pandering to the fantasies of voters .... and so the mess gets worse.
The next year or two is going to be horrific economically. Who will have the guts to be honest with the public about it?
My prediction: Mordaunt will do well this time but won’t get through to the final 2. She will however bag herself a significant cabinet job and will be well poised to be the next leader after one.
Still can’t see beyond Wallace vs Truss, with the former probably getting it.
It will be a woman or a man of Asian/African descent.
Not sure just how big a factor Brexit will be in the leadership race .
Pre Brexit happening clearly being a Remainer was always going to be almost impossible to overcome .
Do the Tory membership want low taxes and a smaller state ? If that’s what they want then it’s going to be difficult to juggle that with keeping their northern seats .
I think low taxes and a smaller state are out of fashion even with Tory members.
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.
That was what Hitler claimed - that all he wanted was to right the wrongs against German minorities who’d ended up in other countries.
In reality he was a proponent of an extreme maximalist Greater Germany, way beyond even other Greater German nationalists wanted.
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.
Bizarre post. None of the candidates fulfil what you say. No politician for that matter or at least no politician in government is going to be "honest about the problems we face".
Or does a dark suit and tie make someone more credible?
What a bizarre response. What have suits got to do with it?
We have had politicians in the past who have been honest about problems Thatcher for instance was frank about wanting to arrest Britain's decline and that this was not going to be easy.
We face a lot of problems. We are not even going to begin solving them if we don't recognise the mess we are in.
But, yeah, politicians prefer pandering to the fantasies of voters .... and so the mess gets worse.
The next year or two is going to be horrific economically. Who will have the guts to be honest with the public about it?
As May demonstrated, honesty with the public about bad news is not in one's electoral interest.
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.
Usually the case. Which is why I hate the focus on net favourability - without seeing the plus and the minus you don't get a full picture. And in any case, when it comes to voting time, is there a significant difference between "unfavourable" and "don't know"?
Javid or Sunak with new boy figures bounce would likely take the short term polling lead over Labour/Starmer from there, Wallace and Zahawi IF they have a good campaign too. The rest might be playing catch up, Patel etc leading a decline
My prediction: Mordaunt will do well this time but won’t get through to the final 2. She will however bag herself a significant cabinet job and will be well poised to be the next leader after one.
Still can’t see beyond Wallace vs Truss, with the former probably getting it.
It will be a woman or a man of Asian/African descent.
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.
Bizarre post. None of the candidates fulfil what you say. No politician for that matter or at least no politician in government is going to be "honest about the problems we face".
Or does a dark suit and tie make someone more credible?
What a bizarre response. What have suits got to do with it?
We have had politicians in the past who have been honest about problems Thatcher for instance was frank about wanting to arrest Britain's decline and that this was not going to be easy.
We face a lot of problems. We are not even going to begin solving them if we don't recognise the mess we are in.
But, yeah, politicians prefer pandering to the fantasies of voters .... and so the mess gets worse.
The next year or two is going to be horrific economically. Who will have the guts to be honest with the public about it?
The losers of the leadership election, perhaps, if we are lucky like last time with Rory. Certainly not the winner.
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.
Bizarre post. None of the candidates fulfil what you say. No politician for that matter or at least no politician in government is going to be "honest about the problems we face".
Or does a dark suit and tie make someone more credible?
What a bizarre response. What have suits got to do with it?
We have had politicians in the past who have been honest about problems Thatcher for instance was frank about wanting to arrest Britain's decline and that this was not going to be easy.
We face a lot of problems. We are not even going to begin solving them if we don't recognise the mess we are in.
But, yeah, politicians prefer pandering to the fantasies of voters .... and so the mess gets worse.
The next year or two is going to be horrific economically. Who will have the guts to be honest with the public about it?
As May demonstrated, honesty with the public about bad news is not in one's electoral interest.
That was in the run up to a GE - whoever gets it needs to get the unpopular stuff out of the way NOW and hope an improving picture is rewarded in 2024.
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.
Thanks for the thought out reply.
Interesting that you think she was out of her depth as Foreign Secretary. She seemed to be much calmer and more responsible about it than Raab, or many of her predecessors in recent years, and in quite challenging circumstances too.
On the two issues we've had, NI and Ukraine, she seems to have handled both adroitly in ways that have been generally respected. Almost everyone seems united that Ukraine has been handled as well as it could be and like you said about her equalities brief, she seemed to think through the NI issues and came up with a proposed solution that was quite reasonable and in general addressed concerns sensibly. Even staunch critics like Gardenwalker and others here said that her proposals there were good, even if the way of going about it was disliked. I expect that if she were to win the leadership a compromise would be reached along the lines of what she's proposed with the EU.
I agree that she's cunning and a survivor - and like Gove she's one of the few Cabinet Ministers (of any party) who seems to genuinely think through the issues she's handling and how to resolve them, whether that be equalities or foreign relations. That seems to me to be a good positive.
You may be right. I would not be surprised to see her winning. She feels to me like an unknown quantity. But that is probably down to my ignorance. But while I was more positive about her in the past there is something about her now that makes me uneasy.
I don’t think she’s ideologically sound. But apart from that, her Thatcher cosplay has been as nauseating as Rishi’s self-branding efforts.
We are all fed up with narcissists, and she presents as one.
She also, and perhaps this shouldn’t matter, seems to have slept with half the parliamentary party.
Didn't know about the last, or more likely had forgotten. But the cosplay and attached photographer have been worrying.
Well it's blindingly obvious: go with obscure. It may be no good in a General Election, but whoever it is won't be obscure after 2 years being on telly as PM every day, will they? Whereas toxic and associated with Bozo is forever.
Tugendhat da man with Aaron Bell as John da Baptist
Curtailing the parliamentary process before going to the members - who are a bunch of lobotomised, elderly racists - could end up being sub-optimal for the Conservative Party.
Javid or Sunak with new boy figures bounce would likely take the short term polling lead over Labour/Starmer from there, Wallace and Zahawi IF they have a good campaign too. The rest might be playing catch up, Patel etc leading a decline
Based on which, rule out Patel and Gove, the unfavourables are too high - views don't switch from unfavourable to favourable. Sunak and Javid are borderline.
Smoke screen by the premier league from having to make a difficult decision for them to voluntarily unhook themselves from taking dodgy money. Who is PM is irrelevant to the fact they take millions from gambling companies facilitating illegal gambling in China and involving Triads and Eastern European mafia.
We also assume the Red Wall is coming back - people believed for a long time only Johnson could do that. And now he's gone.
We will see.
I think things are now very uncertain, as a Labour person Morduant is who I most fear.
I am just looking forward to having someone vaguely (ie More so than Johnson) competent and honest in charge.
If they can make things a bit better at a time when they are probably going to get worse then all to the good. But even a few years of standing still, treading water, with someone you don't want to drop in a meat grinder every time you see them on TV would be an improvement.
The correct answer is Gove, but I doubt any of the contenders would trust him in the job.
This is a bit like the Arsenal fans wondering why they don't give Jack Wilshere another go. Gove was overrated in the first place, seems to have had/be having a breakdown since and has been anonymous in all his recent roles.
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.
Trouble is the known quantities are, frankly, a bit shit.
Yes, I find myself thinking "is there no beginning to their talents?". They really are a pretty ho-hum lot.
Smoke screen by the premier league from having to make a difficult decision for them to voluntarily unhook themselves from taking dodgy money. Who is PM is irrelevant to the fact they take millions from gambling companies facilitating illegal gambling in China and involving Triads and Eastern European mafia.
The correct answer is Gove, but I doubt any of the contenders would trust him in the job.
This is a bit like the Arsenal fans wondering why they don't give Jack Wilshere another go. Gove was overrated in the first place, seems to have had/be having a breakdown since and has been anonymous in all his recent roles.
A quick and bloodless contest only happens if most of that list drop out or are told to do one. If we end up with 8 people running it will be an absolute shit show.
He has fuelled division with the excessive funding for low traffic neighborhoods and other anti-car measures
He is completely controlled by the cycling lobby
He cannot be allowed to continue. And DoT needs new civil servants who don't have anti car dogma
Shapps controlled by the cycling lobby? That's a laugh. What next, King Herod controlled by the child protection lobby? His fight to save parking spaces from being put to better use is legendary.
In case you haven't noticed we have crisis levels of pollution, obesity, congestion, and global warming.
Cycling fights them all, the budget needs to be an order of magnitude bigger - including Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (or "cul de sacs with a cut through for pedestrians and cyclists" as the thousands of existing ones are called) across the vast majority of urban areas.
The correct answer is Gove, but I doubt any of the contenders would trust him in the job.
This is a bit like the Arsenal fans wondering why they don't give Jack Wilshere another go. Gove was overrated in the first place, seems to have had/be having a breakdown since and has been anonymous in all his recent roles.
No not really. What he has been is quietly efficient and effective. Which is exactly what I would want in a Minister.
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.
Bizarre post. None of the candidates fulfil what you say. No politician for that matter or at least no politician in government is going to be "honest about the problems we face".
Or does a dark suit and tie make someone more credible?
What a bizarre response. What have suits got to do with it?
I suppose on inspection I noted an immediate and conclusive dismissal of the female candidates.
Comments
I don’t mean you by the way Ishmael.
As for Wallace, does anyone know whether he actually wants the job?
No. Just no. Read that Nick Cohen article I posted.
Played by “the Rock” of course.
Not necessarily - if Tory MPs went on a vote strike so the government couldn’t get legislation through then that would demonstrate he no longer commanded the confidence of the house.
The other parties realise that the Boomer geriatric brigade are not a long term strategy
Interesting that you think she was out of her depth as Foreign Secretary. She seemed to be much calmer and more responsible about it than Raab, or many of her predecessors in recent years, and in quite challenging circumstances too.
On the two issues we've had, NI and Ukraine, she seems to have handled both adroitly in ways that have been generally respected. Almost everyone seems united that Ukraine has been handled as well as it could be and like you said about her equalities brief, she seemed to think through the NI issues and came up with a proposed solution that was quite reasonable and in general addressed concerns sensibly. Even staunch critics like Gardenwalker and others here said that her proposals there were good, even if the way of going about it was disliked. I expect that if she were to win the leadership a compromise would be reached along the lines of what she's proposed with the EU.
I agree that she's cunning and a survivor - and like Gove she's one of the few Cabinet Ministers (of any party) who seems to genuinely think through the issues she's handling and how to resolve them, whether that be equalities or foreign relations. That seems to me to be a good positive.
nice to see you back
Declared: Braverman, Tugendhat
Publicly expresed interest: Baker, Berry, Buckland, Javid, Shapps
Potential: Barclay, Ellwood, Harper, Hunt, McVey, Mourdant, Patel, Sunak, Truss, Wallace, Zahawi
Declined: Gove, Hancock, Raab
Or does a dark suit and tie make someone more credible?
Psephological Post. I don’t think this is remotely straightforward for the Conservatives from here. Yes, red wall areas have been trending Tory for a while, in much same way metropolitan areas trending away from them actually, some once Tory seats in the metropolitan areas looking lost for the moment, whereas the Red Wall is not Tory as yet, more like a bell weather battle ground.
And yes, Boris won big last time, but as per polling Mike keeps sharing here showing Corbyn as opponent was big factor in the win.
However, and I think this is fair psephology, HY has been right all along, Boris picked up votes from across the voting spectrum and outside it for being Brand Boris, this charismatic politician had unique and persuasive “can do” persona in order to sell the great change for better once we have Brexited and change for the better once levelling up done. I am convinced Boris is a hard act to follow as firstly I doubt any successor can match those vote winning qualities Boris had; and secondly, just how deliverable is “great change for better” from Brexit and Levelling Up, high skill high wages, Boris now hands on as the Tory brand?
Was Boris really a brexiteer, or opportunist? This is going to be much harder for the Conservatives from here than people think.
Still can’t see beyond Wallace vs Truss, with the former probably getting it.
I have no doubt they'll get some kind of boost upon taking over - but none of them have offered any policies to help on the economy. And it is thirteen years of that they will be defending, the public will not be taken for fools twice.
Imagine Wallace trying to get a hearing with Mumsnet. Nah, me neither.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-resignation-speech-theresa-may-cameron-blair-brown_uk_62c6bb65e4b0359fa477d629
Your party still presided over Brexit chaos, and that will continue. The next Prime Minister also has the mother and father of an economic crisis to overcome.
Good luck!
The correct answer is Gove, but I doubt any of the contenders would trust him in the job.
I actually think she's pretty woke on gender issues, which is unfortunate, but she's still the best candidate by a mile.
Don't know who Berry is. Please not Patel and McVey. Shapps is interesting. He has been quite effective, but his past must surely prevent him.
Come on Durham Constabulary!
According to Guido’s sources, at least 5 backbench 2019ers have already refused ministerial posts today. Stay tuned to the live blog for updates…
quite bloody right if true
That would presumably be Truss (Brexit trade deals), Zahawi (Vaccines) and Wallace (Ukraine).
This Goldsmith story doesn’t hang together does it?
Having Raab as a short-term PM would probably be ok, but maybe not needed.
I also backed Bernard Jenkin in a couple of pounds this morning as a possible stand-in.
We will see.
I think things are now very uncertain, as a Labour person Morduant is who I most fear.
Then Adam Boulton came on and pissed all over their chips
But apart from that, her Thatcher cosplay has been as nauseating as Rishi’s self-branding efforts.
We are all fed up with narcissists, and she presents as one.
She also, and perhaps this shouldn’t matter, seems to have slept with half the parliamentary party.
Pre Brexit happening clearly being a Remainer was always going to be almost impossible to overcome .
Do the Tory membership want low taxes and a smaller state ? If that’s what they want then it’s going to be difficult to juggle that with keeping their northern seats .
He has fuelled division with the excessive funding for low traffic neighborhoods and other anti-car measures
He is completely controlled by the cycling lobby
He cannot be allowed to continue. And DoT needs new civil servants who don't have anti car dogma
We have had politicians in the past who have been honest about problems Thatcher for instance was frank about wanting to arrest Britain's decline and that this was not going to be easy.
We face a lot of problems. We are not even going to begin solving them if we don't recognise the mess we are in.
But, yeah, politicians prefer pandering to the fantasies of voters .... and so the mess gets worse.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/selling-manufactured-solid-fuels-for-domestic-use-in-england
In reality he was a proponent of an extreme maximalist Greater Germany, way beyond even other Greater German nationalists wanted.
YouGov@YouGov · 1h
Net favourability of senior politicians
Starmer: -13
Javid: -15
Sunak: -17
Truss: -27
Gove: -50
Johnson: -53
Patel: -53
Wallace: -4 (65% don't know)
Barclay: -15 (68% don't know)
Zahawi: -17 (45% don't know)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/07/07/he-resigns-boris-johnsons-favourability-drops-lowe
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1545069814682730497
He lives in Ynys Mon, where he and his wife have a convoluted property empire of farmhouses and holiday homes.
So basically "Mr Property Speculator"
Exclusive: The Premier League has halted plans for clubs to vote on a voluntary ban on shirt sponsorship by gambling companies as the crisis engulfing Boris Johnson and his administration threatens to delay crucial betting industry reforms.
https://news.sky.com/story/premier-league-halts-gambling-ban-vote-amid-westminster-turmoil-12647726
Tugendhat da man with Aaron Bell as John da Baptist
Sunak 34/51
Javid 31/46
Zahawi 19/36
Truss 18/45
Wallace 16/20
Patel 15/68
Gove 14/64
Barclay 9/24
Based on which, rule out Patel and Gove, the unfavourables are too high - views don't switch from unfavourable to favourable. Sunak and Javid are borderline.
If they can make things a bit better at a time when they are probably going to get worse then all to the good. But even a few years of standing still, treading water, with someone you don't want to drop in a meat grinder every time you see them on TV would be an improvement.
But see this: https://twitter.com/kwajohousing/status/1544785815389306881?s=21&t=3FP9ekfZIYDoKr3k5LB6aQ
In case you haven't noticed we have crisis levels of pollution, obesity, congestion, and global warming.
Cycling fights them all, the budget needs to be an order of magnitude bigger - including Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (or "cul de sacs with a cut through for pedestrians and cyclists" as the thousands of existing ones are called) across the vast majority of urban areas.