Starmer went to a school that became private while he was there.
As that is the only piece of being "posh" that the Tory party have on SKS it continually appears in the hope that people have never investigated the detail.
For those who have investigated the detail it's a pack of lies that confirms (again) that the Tory party are dishonest.
So we have a motion of confidence in the government proposed by the government. "I don' know why we're wasting our time debating my motion" says the PM. But later its important enough to de-whip Ellwood for agreeing with the PM that there are more important things to be doing.
Johnson really is a wazzock.
Ridiculous really. Personally I think it would make sense with Boris on borrowed time to have his ability to remove the whip withdrawn! Remove the whip hand.
Yet another piece of petty revenge from the incredible shrinking PM. The kind words and flattery some of the candidates are pouring on Johnson are said in fear of the vindictive and unrestrained personality of the incumbent. They are right to be afraid: He truly is a shit of the first order.
If I were a Tory MP feeling particularly Machiavellian today I would be switching to Kemi to knock Liz Truss out of the race, particularly if I had been supporting TT.
Doubt it will happen but it would be hilarious.
Would TT supporters genuinely prefer Kemi to Liz?
If I were a Tory MP I’d prefer anyone to Liz, frankly.
Any of the other 3 at least have a chance of narrowly winning a GE, scraping back in as a minority, or at least keeping losses to a build-back-able level. Some are riskier than others.
Liz just feels to me like a guaranteed election loser.
So you say, but almost all non-Tories here seem to fear her.
If the greatest criticism of Truss is that she said "pork markets" oddly ten years ago, and wants to mostly continue with the policies that won an eighty seat majority a couple of years ago, and believes in low taxes - then none of those criticisms really amount to much.
I think @kinablu said Truss is the opponent Labour would most like to meet, and most of the left of centre people on here seemed to agree with that.
So they claim, while simultaneously being utterly terrified of her it seems.
It all began to fall apart for Boris and Rishi when they started raising taxes, especially NI. Rishi seemed to want to blame that on Boris, but now Boris is gone and he's insisting on more of the same. Truss is saying to reverse that mistake.
For that alone, Truss is better, despite my book. Raising NI and raising taxes to a 74 year high isn't "smart" or "rational" or good economics, and if Truss reverses that then that would be a good call. Cutting taxes on people who work for a living rather than always ratchetting them up might actually end up being popular too. 👍
Truss would be Labour's preferred opponent, for sure. Mordaunt probably their least preferred of the three likely to make it. I reckon the final round is something like Sunak 135, Mordaunt 116, Truss 106 with Mordaunt winning the members, although I think Sunak is the strongest candidate and he could still beat Mordaunt given the resources behind his campaign and the fact that Mordaunt is still quite untested and could blow up.
But it has changed frequently over the course of the last three or four weeks.
I don't get a vote of course. But I don't think I'm necessarily unrepresentative in this respect. This is of interest mainly because I suspect orders of preference among those who do have a vote has also changed frequently and considerably and will continue to do so up to the vote.
If I were a Tory MP feeling particularly Machiavellian today I would be switching to Kemi to knock Liz Truss out of the race, particularly if I had been supporting TT.
Doubt it will happen but it would be hilarious.
I think there might well be some of that. Badenoch is only 13 behind Truss, and there are 31 TT supporters going spare, who won't be keen on Truss.
If 40% of Tugendhat's votes go to Badenoch, then Truss should be able to get some of those from Badenoch, but you've not assigned her any of them. Mordaunt gaining 21 when Badenoch is eliminated seems . . . odd.
You're right. It's flawed.
Wow, so Truss through by 1 in that. Potentially 2 now thanks to Ellwood (though realistically that's still 1 voter to swing their mind).
What a difference that change in the formulae makes!
If I were a Tory MP feeling particularly Machiavellian today I would be switching to Kemi to knock Liz Truss out of the race, particularly if I had been supporting TT.
Doubt it will happen but it would be hilarious.
I think there might well be some of that. Badenoch is only 13 behind Truss, and there are 31 TT supporters going spare, who won't be keen on Truss.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 5m Today we find out whether Truss or Badenoch is going to be our next PM, essentially. Something odd *could* conceivably happen even after today to mean it's neither of them, but that's seeming increasingly unlikely now. It's really down to the Tory MPs to choose btwn those two.
But if the sort-of-Thatcherite end of the Conservatives get locked out of the membership vote (though Suank and Mordaunt are hardly wets as it is normally understood), the stab-in-the-back complaints are going to be really funny.
Really funny.
Sunak raises taxes , Mordant is a LD and Truss voted remain - there are 3 wets still in the race.
Truss would be Labour's preferred opponent, for sure. Mordaunt probably their least preferred of the three likely to make it. I reckon the final round is something like Sunak 135, Mordaunt 116, Truss 106 with Mordaunt winning the members, although I think Sunak is the strongest candidate and he could still beat Mordaunt given the resources behind his campaign and the fact that Mordaunt is still quite untested and could blow up.
Mordaunt has done a great deal of blowing up already, it's unlikely that she will stop doing so under the pressure of hustings and further TV appearances.
If I were a Tory MP feeling particularly Machiavellian today I would be switching to Kemi to knock Liz Truss out of the race, particularly if I had been supporting TT.
Doubt it will happen but it would be hilarious.
I think there might well be some of that.
If it happens, then I hope Truss voters go to Kemi so we get a Sunak v Kemi run-off, which would probably be won by Kemi.
Sunak was always getting through the MPs and remains for me the Tories best hope of providing sane governance and having a shot at winning the election.
Shame he's been providing a Labour government.
It would have been fascinating to have had perhaps a monetarist chancellor during Covid. Not sure how mass company failures and unemployment would help the blue cause though.
He could have made a million better decisions than raising NI.
Because politically, Johnson got the big calls right.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Said and liked by people who lost the last election it seems.
If you want a change of politics, that should be done via winning the next election, continuing with the policies that won the last one by a very large majority shouldn't be considered a flaw.
Could you put the goalposts back where you found them? Of course a change of politics should be done via winning the next election. At the next election, the electorate can decide whether the Conservative government got the big, or the little, calls right. (They won't really be asked whether Johnson got the big calls right as he's gone. Indeed, the Conservative Party hasn't put up the person who won the previous election since 2015.)
But I don't think we have to wait until an election to express a view on a political forum as to whether Johnson got the big calls right. The claims he did, whether they are correct or false, were put out as Tory spin. They are up for debate.
Yes, the Conservative government, under its new leader, whoever that is, has a mandate to deliver on its manifesto. But the supposed "big calls" that Johnson supposedly got right are mostly not things that were in the manifesto, but responses to events. (Generally, people talk about vaccines, Ukraine and Brexit, so 2/3 were not in the manifesto and 1/3 was.) So why are you jumping from the "big calls" to "the policies that won the last [election]"?
Of course, the policy that won the last election was an oven-ready Brexit deal that would definitely not impose any paperwork on GB<->NI trade. Which was a big fat lie.
He did get the big calls right. Yes people who dislike his calls and always have will disagree, but that doesn't show anything other than you still dislike his big calls.
My scorecard: Brexit - right. NI (Northern Ireland) - right. NI (National Insurance) - wrong. Ukraine - right. Covid - wrong, but better than all the alternatives except Stefan Lofven Vaccines - right
A solid 7.5/10 and better than the alternatives. "He got the big calls right, but treated the small calls with utter contempt" is a good epitaph for him.
How can Northern Ireland be right when he negotiated an "oven ready" deal that he needs to change? We're 6 years down the line and still arguing over one of the most important parts of Brexit.
The 1922 Committee should change the rules so that any MP who retained the whip at the beginning of the contest remains eligible.
I have just seen this. What a ludicrous loophole. Bozza could theoretically remove all Pennysweets from the selectorate to ensure Truss squeaks through.
Truss would be Labour's preferred opponent, for sure. Mordaunt probably their least preferred of the three likely to make it. I reckon the final round is something like Sunak 135, Mordaunt 116, Truss 106 with Mordaunt winning the members, although I think Sunak is the strongest candidate and he could still beat Mordaunt given the resources behind his campaign and the fact that Mordaunt is still quite untested and could blow up.
Mordaunt has done a great deal of blowing up already, it's unlikely that she will stop doing so under the pressure of hustings and further TV appearances.
Yeah that is definitely possible. I think that right now Sunak should be the favourite but once the final two are known Mordaunt should be a narrow favourite, assuming she is in the final two. If Truss is in the final two then I think Sunak should stay the favourite.
The 1922 Committee should change the rules so that any MP who retained the whip at the beginning of the contest remains eligible.
I have just seen this. What a ludicrous loophole. Bozza could theoretically remove all Pennysweets from the selectorate to ensure Truss squeaks through.
Yes it needs sorting. OTOH You need to ensure that an MP who crosses the floor doesn't get a vote. So the rule should be
i) Not a member of any party other than the Tories. ii) Whip present at start of voting iii) Not suspended from the Commons.
Starmer went to a school that became private while he was there.
As that is the only piece of being "posh" that the Tory party have on SKS it continually appears in the hope that people have never investigated the detail.
For those who have investigated the detail it's a pack of lies that confirms (again) that the Tory party are dishonest.
A bit like Kemi's claim in the Telegraph: " I know what it's like flipping burgers at 16, on minimum wage, and then watching my pay slip away to taxes..."
The minimum wage didn't exist in 1996 (and would she have been paying income tax ?).
If I were a Tory MP feeling particularly Machiavellian today I would be switching to Kemi to knock Liz Truss out of the race, particularly if I had been supporting TT.
Doubt it will happen but it would be hilarious.
I think there might well be some of that. Badenoch is only 13 behind Truss, and there are 31 TT supporters going spare, who won't be keen on Truss.
I think it could be close, and if she does make it I think she rides to the final given the lacklustre performance of Liz and Penny and that plenty of TT supporters want neither.
The alternative for me is to lay her down at 20/1 to get an extra £95 of profit, which is clearly odds-on, but if I do that and she pips Liz then I carry a £1,200 loss as she goes near favourite, a position I wouldn't recover.
Starmer went to a school that became private while he was there.
As that is the only piece of being "posh" that the Tory party have on SKS it continually appears in the hope that people have never investigated the detail.
For those who have investigated the detail it's a pack of lies that confirms (again) that the Tory party are dishonest.
He did still go to a private school and before that a grammar school and he leads a party that is not a great fan of either.
So if we Tories have comp and non Oxbridge educated Penny leading us against Starmer we will ensure the redwall voters know that and if that makes Starmer the posh, privately educated candidate, tough. Labour attacked posh Boris and Cameron's private school education regularly so they may now get a taste of their own medicine!
As I said yesterday about Rishi being only a pound behind the Queen, no-one (well, hardly anyone) cares. They voted for governments led by Boris and Cameron of Eton and Oxford, and by Tony Blair of Fettes and Oxford. People expect politicians to be a bit posh.
Extraordinary of the 1922 to allow Johnson to manipulate the vote in this way. What a filthy dirty crook he is.
MPs know they mustn't miss a vote of confidence.
How much notice was there of it? When was it called?
It was called last week, so extremely odd for anyone to be out of the country unless they're doing it on purpose.
My prediction sticking with my gut numbers. Remains awfully close.
Chair of Defence Committee visiting Moldova right now sounds like a good use of a Parliamentarian’s time to me. The vote was very late yesterday evening, he would no doubt have been back were it not for Brize Norton, Luton being shut and southern airports generally in a state of chaos.
Starmer went to a school that became private while he was there.
As that is the only piece of being "posh" that the Tory party have on SKS it continually appears in the hope that people have never investigated the detail.
For those who have investigated the detail it's a pack of lies that confirms (again) that the Tory party are dishonest.
A bit like Kemi's claim in the Telegraph: " I know what it's like flipping burgers at 16, on minimum wage, and then watching my pay slip away to taxes..."
The minimum wage didn't exist in 1996 (and would she have been paying income tax ?).
The personal allowance was only about 4k or so then so it's entirely possible. I worked in Tescos around the same time, and remember there being some tax.
Because politically, Johnson got the big calls right.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Said and liked by people who lost the last election it seems.
If you want a change of politics, that should be done via winning the next election, continuing with the policies that won the last one by a very large majority shouldn't be considered a flaw.
Could you put the goalposts back where you found them? Of course a change of politics should be done via winning the next election. At the next election, the electorate can decide whether the Conservative government got the big, or the little, calls right. (They won't really be asked whether Johnson got the big calls right as he's gone. Indeed, the Conservative Party hasn't put up the person who won the previous election since 2015.)
But I don't think we have to wait until an election to express a view on a political forum as to whether Johnson got the big calls right. The claims he did, whether they are correct or false, were put out as Tory spin. They are up for debate.
Yes, the Conservative government, under its new leader, whoever that is, has a mandate to deliver on its manifesto. But the supposed "big calls" that Johnson supposedly got right are mostly not things that were in the manifesto, but responses to events. (Generally, people talk about vaccines, Ukraine and Brexit, so 2/3 were not in the manifesto and 1/3 was.) So why are you jumping from the "big calls" to "the policies that won the last [election]"?
Of course, the policy that won the last election was an oven-ready Brexit deal that would definitely not impose any paperwork on GB<->NI trade. Which was a big fat lie.
He did get the big calls right. Yes people who dislike his calls and always have will disagree, but that doesn't show anything other than you still dislike his big calls.
My scorecard: Brexit - right. NI (Northern Ireland) - right. NI (National Insurance) - wrong. Ukraine - right. Covid - wrong, but better than all the alternatives except Stefan Lofven Vaccines - right
A solid 7.5/10 and better than the alternatives. "He got the big calls right, but treated the small calls with utter contempt" is a good epitaph for him.
How can Northern Ireland be right when he negotiated an "oven ready" deal that he needs to change? We're 6 years down the line and still arguing over one of the most important parts of Brexit.
Easy, because it can be changed. And because NI is one of the least important parts of Brexit.
Sorting out NI should have always happened after the important bits of Brexit like our future trading arrangements etc had been done, instead it was arranged by May and Barnier arse over tit to get NI sorted first without bothering to sort the trading arrangements first. There was always a pledge by the EU side that whatever was agreed on NI could be renegotiated in the future post-trading arrangements, but they never seemed to mean that.
Punting NI into the long-grass by agreeing the Protocol as a sticking plaster allowed the more important stuff to get done first, as should have always happened. Now its time to return to deal with the NI issue last, as it should have always been, but the EU want to stick to the sticking plaster rather than renegotiate, just as we always suspected they wanted to do. Funny that! But thankfully the UK has unilateral powers over the Protocol, unlike the backstop.
Extraordinary of the 1922 to allow Johnson to manipulate the vote in this way. What a filthy dirty crook he is.
It's bizarre. Could Boris not just let it pass? The only explanation is that Boris is envisaging a way of retaining power in spite of everything.
The Labour Party would have done the same thing in the same circumstances. It's well-established that missing a vote of confidence is a whip-losing situation.
So as far as I can see the latest twist in climate change denying is to say everything is fine with 40c degree temperatures in the UK and we should all just go out and enjoy it. Only snowflakes are worried.
I'm not clear on which candidate Sunak would rather face with the members out of Mordaunt and Truss. Any ideas?
I think Truss would trounce Rishi if it went to the membership. Mordaunt is now forever tainted with the woke stuff - a massive issue for the British Right - so the membership would don their nose pegs and opt for Rishi in that scenario.
If I were a Tory MP feeling particularly Machiavellian today I would be switching to Kemi to knock Liz Truss out of the race, particularly if I had been supporting TT.
Doubt it will happen but it would be hilarious.
I think there might well be some of that. Badenoch is only 13 behind Truss, and there are 31 TT supporters going spare, who won't be keen on Truss.
I think it could be close, and if she does make it I think she rides to the final given the lacklustre performance of Liz and Penny and that plenty of TT supporters want neither.
The alternative for me is to lay her down at 20/1 to get an extra £95 of profit, which is clearly odds-on, but if I do that and she pips Liz then I carry a £1,200 loss as she goes near favourite, a position I wouldn't recover.
Conclusion: buy & hold Kemi.
I reached the same conclusion, and put a tenner on Badenoch last night at 19/1. Thinking about topping up.
Yes I know these aren't official MET stations. But the MET seems to have a massive southern bias towards 'official' stations, none for miles around Doncaster.
Extraordinary of the 1922 to allow Johnson to manipulate the vote in this way. What a filthy dirty crook he is.
It's bizarre. Could Boris not just let it pass? The only explanation is that Boris is envisaging a way of retaining power in spite of everything.
The Labour Party would have done the same thing in the same circumstances. It's well-established that missing a vote of confidence is a whip-losing situation.
Yep - a vote of no confidence is by it's very definition a mandatory vote. No vote or incorrect vote will result in you being kicked out of the party. Remember in olden days MPs were wheeled in on their death beds and Labour only last in 1979 because they (just) couldn't bring 1 MP back
If I were a Tory MP feeling particularly Machiavellian today I would be switching to Kemi to knock Liz Truss out of the race, particularly if I had been supporting TT.
Doubt it will happen but it would be hilarious.
I think there might well be some of that.
If it happens, then I hope Truss voters go to Kemi so we get a Sunak v Kemi run-off, which would probably be won by Kemi.
Quite possible that it will be a Sunak-Badenoch run-off, although given her lack of experience I think she'd be unlikely to win that. Either way, pretty much anyone (other than the utterly abysmal Braverman) would be less disastrous than Truss. Badenoch at least has talent, and may eventually make a good leader if she's given the chance to gain experience first.
I'd start 60:40 in favour of Badenoch in a member's run-off, but Sunak has far more experience and at some experience hers will show. So he could still beat her.
That said, the Tories are in a hole. They need to take some risks if they want to win the next GE.
Badenoch is extremely bright and hardworking, a good speaker in the House, an interesting writer, and a fair debater, and I think she'd rapidly learn on the job. Labour also wouldn't know how to handle her.
I also think she's not moonbats economically right-wing - sure, she'd want to trim spending and make savings, and make targeted tax cuts, but she's not "double the deficit", Liz - whilst also focussing on housing, family and young people. She has some ideas, unlike Penny. There's some evidence she could connect well.
Starmer went to a school that became private while he was there.
As that is the only piece of being "posh" that the Tory party have on SKS it continually appears in the hope that people have never investigated the detail.
For those who have investigated the detail it's a pack of lies that confirms (again) that the Tory party are dishonest.
I understood it became fee-paying after he left.
I guess it is important because the Labour Party is utterly deranged with the politics of envy when it comes to fee-paying/independent schools. No-one should be criticised for going to a school that was chosen by their parents, and no parent should be criticised for wanting the best for their children and using their own cash to pay for it, whether that is buying a house in an expensive catchment area (the tactic of choice of lefty professionals) or doing a Diane Abbott and accepting the opprobrium of her hypocritical twats of lefty fellow travellers.
Starmer went to a school that became private while he was there.
As that is the only piece of being "posh" that the Tory party have on SKS it continually appears in the hope that people have never investigated the detail.
For those who have investigated the detail it's a pack of lies that confirms (again) that the Tory party are dishonest.
A bit like Kemi's claim in the Telegraph: " I know what it's like flipping burgers at 16, on minimum wage, and then watching my pay slip away to taxes..."
The minimum wage didn't exist in 1996 (and would she have been paying income tax ?).
The personal allowance was only about 4k or so then so it's entirely possible. I worked in Tescos around the same time, and remember there being some tax.
What was the base rate back then - 15-20% ? It's not a huge point - and quite possible she's just misremembering - but there seems to be something of a laxity about facts when making political arguments.
And to be fair to her, it's a slightly more compelling backstory than... went to Eton.
If I were a Tory MP feeling particularly Machiavellian today I would be switching to Kemi to knock Liz Truss out of the race, particularly if I had been supporting TT.
Doubt it will happen but it would be hilarious.
I think there might well be some of that. Badenoch is only 13 behind Truss, and there are 31 TT supporters going spare, who won't be keen on Truss.
I think it could be close, and if she does make it I think she rides to the final given the lacklustre performance of Liz and Penny and that plenty of TT supporters want neither.
The alternative for me is to lay her down at 20/1 to get an extra £95 of profit, which is clearly odds-on, but if I do that and she pips Liz then I carry a £1,200 loss as she goes near favourite, a position I wouldn't recover.
Conclusion: buy & hold Kemi.
If you are going to back Kemi, consider taking 10s in the market for the final two. Then in the members' runoff vote, Kemi will be odds-against (because Rishi will be favourite) so you can back her then with the winnings from the previous bet. The multiplied odds will likely be better, and of course, you do not have to re-invest all the winnings; you can be flexible.
Starmer went to a school that became private while he was there.
As that is the only piece of being "posh" that the Tory party have on SKS it continually appears in the hope that people have never investigated the detail.
For those who have investigated the detail it's a pack of lies that confirms (again) that the Tory party are dishonest.
A bit like Kemi's claim in the Telegraph: " I know what it's like flipping burgers at 16, on minimum wage, and then watching my pay slip away to taxes..."
The minimum wage didn't exist in 1996 (and would she have been paying income tax ?).
The personal allowance was only about 4k or so then so it's entirely possible. I worked in Tescos around the same time, and remember there being some tax.
lower rate limit was £3900 having risen from £3200 in 1995-96 (spot the electioneering tax cut for the next election)
The 1922 Committee should change the rules so that any MP who retained the whip at the beginning of the contest remains eligible.
Then you run the risk of an MP losing the whip for some egregious act, say murder, and still getting to vote in the leadership contest.
If they are in custody they are stuffed, if on bail they haven't been convicted of anything yet. I assume unnameable rapey guy is voting as we keep hearing everybody but 1 has and the 1is sir Gav
And this shows why I'm not backing Badenoch. Culture war BS is the wrong kind of right wing. Low tax economics etc is what we need, not banging on about BLM.
Interesting, and confirms what I have argued before. Badenoch is standing as the candidate to the right of Truss, who can't be trusted with Brexit. Cutting foreign aid, cutting immigration, delaying net zero if necessary, and standing up to BLM (whatever that means). Add her view of the small state, and Badenoch is standing for the (far) right. Fancy trying to outflank Truss on the right!
If I were a Tory MP feeling particularly Machiavellian today I would be switching to Kemi to knock Liz Truss out of the race, particularly if I had been supporting TT.
Doubt it will happen but it would be hilarious.
I think there might well be some of that.
If it happens, then I hope Truss voters go to Kemi so we get a Sunak v Kemi run-off, which would probably be won by Kemi.
Quite possible that it will be a Sunak-Badenoch run-off, although given her lack of experience I think she'd be unlikely to win that. Either way, pretty much anyone (other than the utterly abysmal Braverman) would be less disastrous than Truss. Badenoch at least has talent, and may eventually make a good leader if she's given the chance to gain experience first.
I'd start 60:40 in favour of Badenoch in a member's run-off, but Sunak has far more experience and at some experience hers will show. So he could still beat her.
That said, the Tories are in a hole. They need to take some risks if they want to win the next GE.
Badenoch is extremely bright and hardworking, a good speaker in the House, an interesting writer, and a fair debater, and I think she'd rapidly learn on the job. Labour also wouldn't know how to handle her.
I also think she's not moonbats economically right-wing - sure, she'd want to trim spending and make savings, and make targeted tax cuts, but she's not "double the deficit", Liz - whilst also focussing on housing, family and young people. She has some ideas, unlike Penny. There's some evidence she could connect well.
The 1922 Committee should change the rules so that any MP who retained the whip at the beginning of the contest remains eligible.
Then you run the risk of an MP losing the whip for some egregious act, say murder, and still getting to vote in the leadership contest.
They can always change the rules again!
You shouldn't change the rules mid-contest.
Ellwood knew what the rules were, and the vote was scheduled last week.
You only think this because (notwithstanding your Rishi bet), you want Truss to win
No, I think that because the rules are the rules, anyone changing the rules mid-contest is subject to abuse.
Ellwood knew what the rules are. Missing a confidence vote has always meant losing the whip, so you'd have to be bloody stupid or pig-ignorant, or wilfully making a point, to do so during a leadership contest.
The thing is I suspect that Ellwood did this on purpose. He's always disliked Boris and I think he did it deliberately, well that's his prerogative but to do so on a confidence vote means loss of whip. Those are the rules, they always have been.
Interesting, and confirms what I have argued before. Badenoch is standing as the candidate to the right of Truss, who can't be trusted with Brexit. Cutting foreign aid, cutting immigration, delaying net zero if necessary, and standing up to BLM (whatever that means). Add her view of the small state, and Badenoch is standing for the (far) right. Fancy trying to outflank Truss on the right!
If I were a Tory MP feeling particularly Machiavellian today I would be switching to Kemi to knock Liz Truss out of the race, particularly if I had been supporting TT.
Doubt it will happen but it would be hilarious.
I think there might well be some of that. Badenoch is only 13 behind Truss, and there are 31 TT supporters going spare, who won't be keen on Truss.
I think it could be close, and if she does make it I think she rides to the final given the lacklustre performance of Liz and Penny and that plenty of TT supporters want neither.
The alternative for me is to lay her down at 20/1 to get an extra £95 of profit, which is clearly odds-on, but if I do that and she pips Liz then I carry a £1,200 loss as she goes near favourite, a position I wouldn't recover.
Conclusion: buy & hold Kemi.
If you are going to back Kemi, consider taking 10s in the market for the final two. Then in the members' runoff vote, Kemi will be odds-against (because Rishi will be favourite) so you can back her then with the winnings from the previous bet. The multiplied odds will likely be better, and of course, you do not have to re-invest all the winnings; you can be flexible.
That's a risky strategy if ever I saw one. Have you seen her members polling ? The speccie and rw blue tick journos are cracking one off daily about her.
The 1922 Committee should change the rules so that any MP who retained the whip at the beginning of the contest remains eligible.
Then you run the risk of an MP losing the whip for some egregious act, say murder, and still getting to vote in the leadership contest.
They can always change the rules again!
You shouldn't change the rules mid-contest.
Ellwood knew what the rules were, and the vote was scheduled last week.
You only think this because (notwithstanding your Rishi bet), you want Truss to win
No, I think that because the rules are the rules, anyone changing the rules mid-contest is subject to abuse.
Ellwood knew what the rules are. Missing a confidence vote has always meant losing the whip, so you'd have to be bloody stupid or pig-ignorant, or wilfully making a point, to do so during a leadership contest.
The thing is Ellwood did this on purpose. He's always disliked Boris and I think he did it deliberately, well that's his prerogative but to do so on a confidence vote means loss of whip. Those are the rules, they always have been.
I just tried to find who invented that ear grating soundbite 'We got the big calls right' and perhaps not surprisingly no one is admitting to it. But what I did get was a deluge of reasons why it's not only a complete load of bollocks but why it's actually the opposite of what happened. Come in the West Country.....
The 1922 Committee should change the rules so that any MP who retained the whip at the beginning of the contest remains eligible.
Then you run the risk of an MP losing the whip for some egregious act, say murder, and still getting to vote in the leadership contest.
They can always change the rules again!
You shouldn't change the rules mid-contest.
Ellwood knew what the rules were, and the vote was scheduled last week.
You only think this because (notwithstanding your Rishi bet), you want Truss to win
No, I think that because the rules are the rules, anyone changing the rules mid-contest is subject to abuse.
Ellwood knew what the rules are. Missing a confidence vote has always meant losing the whip, so you'd have to be bloody stupid or pig-ignorant, or wilfully making a point, to do so during a leadership contest.
The thing is Ellwood did this on purpose. He's always disliked Boris and I think he did it deliberately, well that's his prerogative but to do so on a confidence vote means loss of whip. Those are the rules, they always have been.
11 other Tory MPs missed the vote
If they were paired, then that's OK, that's how this has always operated.
Ellwood if he intended to leave the country while there's a confidence vote going on should have ensured he was paired before he left, he didn't, so not being overseas yesterday was an option. If he was paired, there'd be no reason to remove the whip, but he wasn't, and he knew that, but didn't vote.
If I were a Tory MP feeling particularly Machiavellian today I would be switching to Kemi to knock Liz Truss out of the race, particularly if I had been supporting TT.
Doubt it will happen but it would be hilarious.
I think there might well be some of that.
If it happens, then I hope Truss voters go to Kemi so we get a Sunak v Kemi run-off, which would probably be won by Kemi.
Sunak was always getting through the MPs and remains for me the Tories best hope of providing sane governance and having a shot at winning the election.
Shame he's been providing a Labour government.
It would have been fascinating to have had perhaps a monetarist chancellor during Covid. Not sure how mass company failures and unemployment would help the blue cause though.
He could have made a million better decisions than raising NI.
How?
One of the biggest issues with Government Expenditure is social care. They kicked the can down the road in the 2010's by tagging a levy on to council tax but that money is already spent and social care expenditure is rapidly rising.
So something had to be done and the easiest tax to use is NI...
What else would you do to raise £12bn on the quiet.
The 1922 Committee should change the rules so that any MP who retained the whip at the beginning of the contest remains eligible.
Then you run the risk of an MP losing the whip for some egregious act, say murder, and still getting to vote in the leadership contest.
They can always change the rules again!
You shouldn't change the rules mid-contest.
Ellwood knew what the rules were, and the vote was scheduled last week.
You only think this because (notwithstanding your Rishi bet), you want Truss to win
No, I think that because the rules are the rules, anyone changing the rules mid-contest is subject to abuse.
Ellwood knew what the rules are. Missing a confidence vote has always meant losing the whip, so you'd have to be bloody stupid or pig-ignorant, or wilfully making a point, to do so during a leadership contest.
The thing is I suspect that Ellwood did this on purpose. He's always disliked Boris and I think he did it deliberately, well that's his prerogative but to do so on a confidence vote means loss of whip. Those are the rules, they always have been.
Missing a confidence vote WITHOUT PERMISSION usually means losing the whip, but multiple other Tory MPs missed the vote with permission. Ellwood could have been given permission. It's not like he's on a stag do: he's trying to do something about the Ukraine war.
Starmer went to a school that became private while he was there.
As that is the only piece of being "posh" that the Tory party have on SKS it continually appears in the hope that people have never investigated the detail.
For those who have investigated the detail it's a pack of lies that confirms (again) that the Tory party are dishonest.
A bit like Kemi's claim in the Telegraph: " I know what it's like flipping burgers at 16, on minimum wage, and then watching my pay slip away to taxes..."
The minimum wage didn't exist in 1996 (and would she have been paying income tax ?).
The personal allowance was only about 4k or so then so it's entirely possible. I worked in Tescos around the same time, and remember there being some tax.
lower rate limit was £3900 having risen from £3200 in 1995-96 (spot the electioneering tax cut for the next election)
Yep, think I was on about £4 per hour...
Actually if anything, you were probably more likely to pay national insurance than PAYE, you would be on good going to get 1000hr per year, thats about 20hrs per week.
And this shows why I'm not backing Badenoch. Culture war BS is the wrong kind of right wing. Low tax economics etc is what we need, not banging on about BLM.
Re our brief conversation from yesterday - I suspect we're very similar on social issues, but different on economics, where I'm to your left.
Would be interesting to know with Badenoch how much of it is really personal opinion and how much is playing up to the (supposed) biases of the membership - and maybe some of the MPs. To get on as a black MP in the Con party, does she have to come out against BLM? (if, indeed, she has)
(not particularly tagetting the Cons here - to get on as a priviliged white male in Labour, do you need to come out as superwoke?)
The 1922 Committee should change the rules so that any MP who retained the whip at the beginning of the contest remains eligible.
Then you run the risk of an MP losing the whip for some egregious act, say murder, and still getting to vote in the leadership contest.
They can always change the rules again!
You shouldn't change the rules mid-contest.
Ellwood knew what the rules were, and the vote was scheduled last week.
You only think this because (notwithstanding your Rishi bet), you want Truss to win
No, I think that because the rules are the rules, anyone changing the rules mid-contest is subject to abuse.
Ellwood knew what the rules are. Missing a confidence vote has always meant losing the whip, so you'd have to be bloody stupid or pig-ignorant, or wilfully making a point, to do so during a leadership contest.
The thing is Ellwood did this on purpose. He's always disliked Boris and I think he did it deliberately, well that's his prerogative but to do so on a confidence vote means loss of whip. Those are the rules, they always have been.
11 other Tory MPs missed the vote
If they were paired, then that's OK, that's how this has always operated.
Ellwood if he intended to leave the country while there's a confidence vote going on should have ensured he was paired before he left, he didn't, so not being overseas yesterday was an option. If he was paired, there'd be no reason to remove the whip, but he wasn't, and he knew that, but didn't vote.
This is the kind of bullshit that turns normal people off politics and want to have nothing to do with it. Pointless game playing by Labour, pathetic ego polishing by Johnson, all the while massive challenges people are facing in their lives and most of these monkeys care only about their own ego and back pocket
If I were a Tory MP feeling particularly Machiavellian today I would be switching to Kemi to knock Liz Truss out of the race, particularly if I had been supporting TT.
Doubt it will happen but it would be hilarious.
I think there might well be some of that.
If it happens, then I hope Truss voters go to Kemi so we get a Sunak v Kemi run-off, which would probably be won by Kemi.
Quite possible that it will be a Sunak-Badenoch run-off, although given her lack of experience I think she'd be unlikely to win that. Either way, pretty much anyone (other than the utterly abysmal Braverman) would be less disastrous than Truss. Badenoch at least has talent, and may eventually make a good leader if she's given the chance to gain experience first.
I'd start 60:40 in favour of Badenoch in a member's run-off, but Sunak has far more experience and at some experience hers will show. So he could still beat her.
That said, the Tories are in a hole. They need to take some risks if they want to win the next GE.
Badenoch is extremely bright and hardworking, a good speaker in the House, an interesting writer, and a fair debater, and I think she'd rapidly learn on the job. Labour also wouldn't know how to handle her.
I also think she's not moonbats economically right-wing - sure, she'd want to trim spending and make savings, and make targeted tax cuts, but she's not "double the deficit", Liz - whilst also focussing on housing, family and young people. She has some ideas, unlike Penny. There's some evidence she could connect well.
Roll the dice on Badenoch. Do it.
Yes we need another crap right wing Tory zealot like a hole in the head. No more please. It'll take years to recover from the last one
Starmer went to a school that became private while he was there.
As that is the only piece of being "posh" that the Tory party have on SKS it continually appears in the hope that people have never investigated the detail.
For those who have investigated the detail it's a pack of lies that confirms (again) that the Tory party are dishonest.
He did still go to a private school and before that a grammar school and he leads a party that is not a great fan of either.
So if we Tories have comp and non Oxbridge educated Penny leading us against Starmer we will ensure the redwall voters know that and if that makes Starmer the posh, privately educated candidate, tough. Labour attacked posh Boris and Cameron's private school education regularly so they may now get a taste of their own medicine!
As I said yesterday about Rishi being only a pound behind the Queen, no-one (well, hardly anyone) cares. They voted for governments led by Boris and Cameron of Eton and Oxford, and by Tony Blair of Fettes and Oxford. People expect politicians to be a bit posh.
This isn't true. People don't care as long as they sense noblesse oblige rather than a resurgence of the caste system.
I'm not clear on which candidate Sunak would rather face wrt the membership vote out of Mordaunt and Truss. Any ideas?
I would have said Truss originally, now I suspect Penny.
Rishi and Penny both have drawbacks to the membership - the former on tax, the latter on ‘woke’. Whereas Truss speaks to member sensibilities more on tax and Brexit.
Rishi could beast Penny in a 1 on 1 debate based on previous performances. Truss isn’t a great debater but just needs to keep doubling down on membership-friendly issues and she’ll scrape through.
Sunak isn’t guaranteed to win a membership vote against any of them IMHO, but he can pivot to being the attractive choice over Penny IMHO (experience, competence etc), whereas it’s harder against Truss.
Extraordinary of the 1922 to allow Johnson to manipulate the vote in this way. What a filthy dirty crook he is.
MPs know they mustn't miss a vote of confidence.
How much notice was there of it? When was it called?
It was called last week, so extremely odd for anyone to be out of the country unless they're doing it on purpose.
Ellwood claims to have intended to travel back in time for the vote, but was unable to do so due to the weather disrupting his travel plans. I think this is Johnson engaging in petty point-scoring, but only because Ellwood provided an opportunity for him to do so.
I don't think it presages an attempt to interfere in the leadership election by removing the whip from numerous Mordaunt-supporting MPs. But if only one vote is in it then it will be very controversial.
And this shows why I'm not backing Badenoch. Culture war BS is the wrong kind of right wing. Low tax economics etc is what we need, not banging on about BLM.
Re our brief conversation from yesterday - I suspect we're very similar on social issues, but different on economics, where I'm to your left.
Would be interesting to know with Badenoch how much of it is really personal opinion and how much is playing up to the (supposed) biases of the membership - and maybe some of the MPs. To get on as a black MP in the Con party, does she have to come out against BLM? (if, indeed, she has)
(not particularly tagetting the Cons here - to get on as a priviliged white male in Labour, do you need to come out as superwoke?)
Badenoch has been very anti-BLM for years. I don't think she's putting anything on. She's a hard right Tory. If you want to be more specific, she seems to be on the libertarian wing. We also know she lies (she wasn't on minimum wage because there wasn't a minimum wage). We also know she U-turns (against Net Zero, for Net Zero, against Net Zero in one day). She's Nadine Dorries with somewhat more brains.
If Penny backers do go via Badenoch to knock Truss out it could be a too clever by half strategy. The risk level for a one nation Tory is off the charts tbh.
Comments
I reckon the final round is something like Sunak 135, Mordaunt 116, Truss 106 with Mordaunt winning the members, although I think Sunak is the strongest candidate and he could still beat Mordaunt given the resources behind his campaign and the fact that Mordaunt is still quite untested and could blow up.
Kemi
Rishi
Liz
Penny
But it has changed frequently over the course of the last three or four weeks.
I don't get a vote of course. But I don't think I'm necessarily unrepresentative in this respect. This is of interest mainly because I suspect orders of preference among those who do have a vote has also changed frequently and considerably and will continue to do so up to the vote.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1549301040079687680?s=20&t=JVfnO-yBenqS5Jh5-dZMjw
What a difference that change in the formulae makes!
I think it is extremely likely that Sunak is in the last two and a toss up between the women.
Cooler but much more oppressive than yesterday.
https://www.meteociel.fr/temps-reel/obs_villes.php?code2=3772
(OT. I just heard Johnson on radio sounding drunk. Is No 10 celebrating?)
My prediction sticking with my gut numbers. Remains awfully close.
Welcome back, Harry @TGOHF22
i) Not a member of any party other than the Tories.
ii) Whip present at start of voting
iii) Not suspended from the Commons.
" I know what it's like flipping burgers at 16, on minimum wage, and then watching my pay slip away to taxes..."
The minimum wage didn't exist in 1996 (and would she have been paying income tax ?).
I think it could be close, and if she does make it I think she rides to the final given the lacklustre performance of Liz and Penny and that plenty of TT supporters want neither.
The alternative for me is to lay her down at 20/1 to get an extra £95 of profit, which is clearly odds-on, but if I do that and she pips Liz then I carry a £1,200 loss as she goes near favourite, a position I wouldn't recover.
Conclusion: buy & hold Kemi.
Sorting out NI should have always happened after the important bits of Brexit like our future trading arrangements etc had been done, instead it was arranged by May and Barnier arse over tit to get NI sorted first without bothering to sort the trading arrangements first. There was always a pledge by the EU side that whatever was agreed on NI could be renegotiated in the future post-trading arrangements, but they never seemed to mean that.
Punting NI into the long-grass by agreeing the Protocol as a sticking plaster allowed the more important stuff to get done first, as should have always happened. Now its time to return to deal with the NI issue last, as it should have always been, but the EU want to stick to the sticking plaster rather than renegotiate, just as we always suspected they wanted to do. Funny that! But thankfully the UK has unilateral powers over the Protocol, unlike the backstop.
https://www.weatherhq.co.uk/weather-station/robin-hood-doncaster-sheffield-airport
35 for Kirmington - https://www.weatherhq.co.uk/weather-station/humberside
Yes I know these aren't official MET stations. But the MET seems to have a massive southern bias towards 'official' stations, none for miles around Doncaster.
That said, the Tories are in a hole. They need to take some risks if they want to win the next GE.
Badenoch is extremely bright and hardworking, a good speaker in the House, an interesting writer, and a fair debater, and I think she'd rapidly learn on the job. Labour also wouldn't know how to handle her.
I also think she's not moonbats economically right-wing - sure, she'd want to trim spending and make savings, and make targeted tax cuts, but she's not "double the deficit", Liz - whilst also focussing on housing, family and young people. She has some ideas, unlike Penny. There's some evidence she could connect well.
Roll the dice on Badenoch. Do it.
https://conservativehome.com/2022/07/19/this-tory-leadership-election-the-conhome-survey-and-the-unherdabilty-of-the-most-sophisticated-electorate-in-the-world/
It's not a huge point - and quite possible she's just misremembering - but there seems to be something of a laxity about facts when making political arguments.
And to be fair to her, it's a slightly more compelling backstory than... went to Eton.
Ellwood knew what the rules were, and the vote was scheduled last week.
After saying it was unilateral economic disarmament.
Now it's delay if necessary.
She's hard right. When the Tories choose a hard right leader, they lose.
Ellwood knew what the rules are. Missing a confidence vote has always meant losing the whip, so you'd have to be bloody stupid or pig-ignorant, or wilfully making a point, to do so during a leadership contest.
The thing is I suspect that Ellwood did this on purpose. He's always disliked Boris and I think he did it deliberately, well that's his prerogative but to do so on a confidence vote means loss of whip. Those are the rules, they always have been.
and disable the WoW stations, many of which are self-entered. Refreshes every hour
https://westcountryvoices.com/he-got-the-big-calls-right-best-for-britain-debunks-the-mantra/
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-07-18/division/246937F1-125F-43AD-816E-7A7B73716E09/ConfidenceInHerMajesty’SGovernment?outputType=Party#party-yesConservativeAyes
https://www.meteociel.fr/temps-reel/obs_villes.php?code2=3462&jour2=19&mois2=6&annee2=2022
https://twitter.com/Tobias_Ellwood
Ellwood if he intended to leave the country while there's a confidence vote going on should have ensured he was paired before he left, he didn't, so not being overseas yesterday was an option. If he was paired, there'd be no reason to remove the whip, but he wasn't, and he knew that, but didn't vote.
One of the biggest issues with Government Expenditure is social care. They kicked the can down the road in the 2010's by tagging a levy on to council tax but that money is already spent and social care expenditure is rapidly rising.
So something had to be done and the easiest tax to use is NI...
What else would you do to raise £12bn on the quiet.
Actually if anything, you were probably more likely to pay national insurance than PAYE, you would be on good going to get 1000hr per year, thats about 20hrs per week.
Charlwood 37.3C
Would be interesting to know with Badenoch how much of it is really personal opinion and how much is playing up to the (supposed) biases of the membership - and maybe some of the MPs. To get on as a black MP in the Con party, does she have to come out against BLM? (if, indeed, she has)
(not particularly tagetting the Cons here - to get on as a priviliged white male in Labour, do you need to come out as superwoke?)
356 voting Tory MPs and 340 voted in the motion.
It's why JRM gets a pass and Patel gets pelters
Rishi and Penny both have drawbacks to the membership - the former on tax, the latter on ‘woke’. Whereas Truss speaks to member sensibilities more on tax and Brexit.
Rishi could beast Penny in a 1 on 1 debate based on previous performances. Truss isn’t a great debater but just needs to keep doubling down on membership-friendly issues and she’ll scrape through.
Sunak isn’t guaranteed to win a membership vote against any of them IMHO, but he can pivot to being the attractive choice over Penny IMHO (experience, competence etc), whereas it’s harder against Truss.
I don't think it presages an attempt to interfere in the leadership election by removing the whip from numerous Mordaunt-supporting MPs. But if only one vote is in it then it will be very controversial.