Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

We are headed for a new Elizabethan era – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 31 in General
imageWe are headed for a new Elizabethan era – politicalbetting.com

Chart from Betdata.io

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 102,795
    First like Lizzy.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 102,795
    Because the Welsh are degenerate backwards people and are frightened of new technology OGH is in Wales with very little mobile coverage so I'm in charge until Friday, so buckle up.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,810
    First.
    Author of article rightly disqualified.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432

    Because the Welsh are degenerate backwards people and are frightened of new technology OGH is in Wales with very little mobile coverage so I'm in charge until Friday, so buckle up.

    There are storms brewing in Finland?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,258
    Let tyrants fear, for Liz has the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too!
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 420

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Does Lord Cruddas have any idea how dangerous this sort of thing is to the fabric of democracy ?

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1645515/Boris-Johnson-coup-legal-challenge-Tory-membership-high-court-bid-Lord-Cruddas-update

    Boris Johnson might not be a January 6th Trump but some of his supporters are.

    Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
    Surely the High Court will just tell them to fuck off?
  • If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,087
    Unpopular said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Does Lord Cruddas have any idea how dangerous this sort of thing is to the fabric of democracy ?

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1645515/Boris-Johnson-coup-legal-challenge-Tory-membership-high-court-bid-Lord-Cruddas-update

    Boris Johnson might not be a January 6th Trump but some of his supporters are.

    Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
    Surely the High Court will just tell them to fuck off?
    I can't understand what the basis of the case would be?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,682
    Betfair next prime minister
    1.32 Liz Truss 76%
    4.1 Rishi Sunak 24%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.3 Liz Truss 77%
    4.1 Rishi Sunak 24%
  • PantherDavePantherDave Posts: 53
    Conservative members who vote early can always alter their vote later. If duplicate votes are received rules state that the latest vote counts so early voting isn't such a factor surely.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 478

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Does Lord Cruddas have any idea how dangerous this sort of thing is to the fabric of democracy ?

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1645515/Boris-Johnson-coup-legal-challenge-Tory-membership-high-court-bid-Lord-Cruddas-update

    Boris Johnson might not be a January 6th Trump but some of his supporters are.

    Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
    It doesn't have the power. Then again, it doesn't even have the power to trigger a recall position, but that doesn't seem to be stopping Harman.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,279

    Conservative members who vote early can always alter their vote later. If duplicate votes are received rules state that the latest vote counts so early voting isn't such a factor surely.

    Come on, how many members will actually bother to do this.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,082
    Elizabeth Bathory?

    Lock up your daughters.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 19,803

    Elizabeth Bathory?

    Lock up your daughters.

    How do we know that FetLife Liz isn't into that kind of flexing...?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    Truss/Sunak has a Sun/Talk TV debate (that virtually no-one will watch, clips may be circulated) and Sky TV a week Thursday.


    That's it.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,682
    Spectator TV live now talking about the leadership race
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GjVfm0jZRw
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 3,350
    Ipswich Tory lady on R4 Today was wearing a "Margaret Thatcher dress"


  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,466
    ydoethur said:

    Let tyrants fear, for Liz has the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too!

    Where does she keep them?
    Chained up in the basement dungeon.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,682

    Truss/Sunak has a Sun/Talk TV debate (that virtually no-one will watch, clips may be circulated) and Sky TV a week Thursday.


    That's it.

    Sun/Talk TV debate is at 6pm tonight and can be watched on
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPamKOPabFc
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 18,414

    Ipswich Tory lady on R4 Today was wearing a "Margaret Thatcher dress"


    TSE wears David Cameron underpants.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,682
    Pulpstar said:

    Conservative members who vote early can always alter their vote later. If duplicate votes are received rules state that the latest vote counts so early voting isn't such a factor surely.

    Come on, how many members will actually bother to do this.
    Tory members should give some thought to how this can work, as it requires postal votes to be carefully filed at CCHQ so they can be overridden later.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,018

    If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
  • If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 478

    Pulpstar said:

    Conservative members who vote early can always alter their vote later. If duplicate votes are received rules state that the latest vote counts so early voting isn't such a factor surely.

    Come on, how many members will actually bother to do this.
    Tory members should give some thought to how this can work, as it requires postal votes to be carefully filed at CCHQ so they can be overridden later.
    I assumed that postal votes would be digitised when received so that they can be overridden later.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,087

    Truss/Sunak has a Sun/Talk TV debate (that virtually no-one will watch, clips may be circulated) and Sky TV a week Thursday.


    That's it.

    To all intents and purposes the race is now finished, but we have six weeks until everyone can acknowledge the fact and move on.

    Truss will almost certainly reach 50% of votes of the likely turnout not long after the ballots are sent out, and yet the phony contest will stagger on.

    I'm impatient for the next steps in the story. Who will be the Chancellor who gets to announce all the extra borrowing tax cuts? Does Priti Patel survive? What jobs can Trust safely give to the inept Boris loyalists? Will Zahawi's name ever be spoken again?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,040
    boulay said:

    ydoethur said:

    Let tyrants fear, for Liz has the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too!

    Where does she keep them?
    Chained up in the basement dungeon.
    One assumes the media is sitting on the stories about her alleged proclivities, hoping for a bigger story once she is PM.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,018

    If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS will do worse than 2017 in terms of votes and probably seats IMO
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294

    Pulpstar said:

    Conservative members who vote early can always alter their vote later. If duplicate votes are received rules state that the latest vote counts so early voting isn't such a factor surely.

    Come on, how many members will actually bother to do this.
    Tory members should give some thought to how this can work, as it requires postal votes to be carefully filed at CCHQ so they can be overridden later.
    Presumably each postal ballot has a unique QR code linked to membership number, so the physical ballots go into the same database as the online votes?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449
    Driver said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Conservative members who vote early can always alter their vote later. If duplicate votes are received rules state that the latest vote counts so early voting isn't such a factor surely.

    Come on, how many members will actually bother to do this.
    Tory members should give some thought to how this can work, as it requires postal votes to be carefully filed at CCHQ so they can be overridden later.
    I assumed that postal votes would be digitised when received so that they can be overridden later.
    It sounds a faff. TSE or someone please confirm, but I assume you have to ask for a new ballot paper? Pay the best part of a quid for a postage stamp, per vote? Silly rule, never going to make a difference
  • DriverDriver Posts: 478
    IshmaelZ said:

    Driver said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Conservative members who vote early can always alter their vote later. If duplicate votes are received rules state that the latest vote counts so early voting isn't such a factor surely.

    Come on, how many members will actually bother to do this.
    Tory members should give some thought to how this can work, as it requires postal votes to be carefully filed at CCHQ so they can be overridden later.
    I assumed that postal votes would be digitised when received so that they can be overridden later.
    It sounds a faff. TSE or someone please confirm, but I assume you have to ask for a new ballot paper? Pay the best part of a quid for a postage stamp, per vote? Silly rule, never going to make a difference
    Online voting is also allowed, and security be damned.
  • If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS will do worse than 2017 in terms of votes and probably seats IMO
    Seats are the only thing that matters.

    2017 was a terrible result compared to 2005, you know when Labour won
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,018

    If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS was architect of Labours disastrous BREXIT policy that was mainly responsible along with Boris being able to reach parts other Tories couldn't with his oven ready deal and levelling up.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,105

    Pulpstar said:

    Conservative members who vote early can always alter their vote later. If duplicate votes are received rules state that the latest vote counts so early voting isn't such a factor surely.

    Come on, how many members will actually bother to do this.
    Tory members should give some thought to how this can work, as it requires postal votes to be carefully filed at CCHQ so they can be overridden later.
    This sounds like one of my ideas - Great in principle, but likely to go pear shaped in implementation.
  • If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS was architect of Labours disastrous BREXIT policy that was mainly responsible along with Boris being able to reach parts other Tories couldn't with his oven ready deal and levelling up.
    No the architect of it was John McDonnell.
  • PantherDavePantherDave Posts: 53
    Driver said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Driver said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Conservative members who vote early can always alter their vote later. If duplicate votes are received rules state that the latest vote counts so early voting isn't such a factor surely.

    Come on, how many members will actually bother to do this.
    Tory members should give some thought to how this can work, as it requires postal votes to be carefully filed at CCHQ so they can be overridden later.
    I assumed that postal votes would be digitised when received so that they can be overridden later.
    It sounds a faff. TSE or someone please confirm, but I assume you have to ask for a new ballot paper? Pay the best part of a quid for a postage stamp, per vote? Silly rule, never going to make a difference
    Online voting is also allowed, and security be damned.
    Online voting allowed for the first time hence easy to vote again
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,279
    edited July 26

    Unpopular said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Does Lord Cruddas have any idea how dangerous this sort of thing is to the fabric of democracy ?

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1645515/Boris-Johnson-coup-legal-challenge-Tory-membership-high-court-bid-Lord-Cruddas-update

    Boris Johnson might not be a January 6th Trump but some of his supporters are.

    Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
    Surely the High Court will just tell them to fuck off?
    I can't understand what the basis of the case would be?
    SCHEDULE 2
    RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
    1 The Leader shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members.
    2 A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent
    Leadership election.
    Election of Leader
    3 Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to
    the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for
    deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall
    be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.
    4 If there is only one candidate at the time laid down for the close of nominations, that candidate shall be
    declared Leader of the Party.
    5 Only those Party Members and Scottish Party Members who were members of the Party from the time
    of the call for nominations by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee for the election of the Leader and
    have been members for at least three months immediately prior to the close of the ballot for the election
    of the Leader shall be entitled to vote.
    6 A candidate achieving more than 50% of the vote among the Party Membership shall be declared elected
    Leader of the Party.
    7 In the event of there being only one valid nomination at the close of nominations prior to the first ballot
    being held by the Parliamentary Party for the election of the new Leader, the election of the nominee
    may if so ordered by the Board be ratified by a ballot of the Party Members and Scottish Party Members
    to be held within one month of the close of nomination.
    8 Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the rules for the conduct of the ballot or ballots of Party
    Members and Scottish Party Members shall be agreed by the Board and the Executive Committee of the
    1922 Committee.
    9 The Chairman of the 1922 Committee, acting on behalf of the Party, shall act as Returning Officer for all
    stages of the election.

    Sir Graham Brady needs to tell Lord Cruddas to fuck off.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,018

    If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS will do worse than 2017 in terms of votes and probably seats IMO
    Seats are the only thing that matters.

    2017 was a terrible result compared to 2005, you know when Labour won
    But much better than 2010 and 2015 when new Labour actually lost.

    What does Lab even stand for now?
  • If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS will do worse than 2017 in terms of votes and probably seats IMO
    Seats are the only thing that matters.

    2017 was a terrible result compared to 2005, you know when Labour won
    But much better than 2010 and 2015 when new Labour actually lost.

    What does Lab even stand for now?
    Better than 2010? How?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,682
    Driver said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Conservative members who vote early can always alter their vote later. If duplicate votes are received rules state that the latest vote counts so early voting isn't such a factor surely.

    Come on, how many members will actually bother to do this.
    Tory members should give some thought to how this can work, as it requires postal votes to be carefully filed at CCHQ so they can be overridden later.
    I assumed that postal votes would be digitised when received so that they can be overridden later.
    Quite possibly but that is merely the mechanism. The point is that votes must be recorded against the identity of the voter, rather than just counted and shredded. A vindictive leader might want to know, for instance, that Isle of Wight Tories voted for their opponent.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449
    Pulpstar said:

    Unpopular said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Does Lord Cruddas have any idea how dangerous this sort of thing is to the fabric of democracy ?

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1645515/Boris-Johnson-coup-legal-challenge-Tory-membership-high-court-bid-Lord-Cruddas-update

    Boris Johnson might not be a January 6th Trump but some of his supporters are.

    Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
    Surely the High Court will just tell them to fuck off?
    I can't understand what the basis of the case would be?
    SCHEDULE 2
    RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
    1 The Leader shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members.
    2 A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent
    Leadership election.
    Election of Leader
    3 Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to
    the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for
    deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall
    be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.
    4 If there is only one candidate at the time laid down for the close of nominations, that candidate shall be
    declared Leader of the Party.
    5 Only those Party Members and Scottish Party Members who were members of the Party from the time
    of the call for nominations by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee for the election of the Leader and
    have been members for at least three months immediately prior to the close of the ballot for the election
    of the Leader shall be entitled to vote.
    6 A candidate achieving more than 50% of the vote among the Party Membership shall be declared elected
    Leader of the Party.
    7 In the event of there being only one valid nomination at the close of nominations prior to the first ballot
    being held by the Parliamentary Party for the election of the new Leader, the election of the nominee
    may if so ordered by the Board be ratified by a ballot of the Party Members and Scottish Party Members
    to be held within one month of the close of nomination.
    8 Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the rules for the conduct of the ballot or ballots of Party
    Members and Scottish Party Members shall be agreed by the Board and the Executive Committee of the
    1922 Committee.
    9 The Chairman of the 1922 Committee, acting on behalf of the Party, shall act as Returning Officer for all
    stages of the election.

    Sir Graham Brady needs to tell Lord Cruddas to fuck off.
    Has phatboi actually resigned from the leadership of the party? If yes: no case

    If no was he unfairly excluded from the rule 3 selection process? If yes: case. The rules are the basis of a contract between party and member, who can sue for breach of them.
  • eekeek Posts: 20,284

    If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS was architect of Labours disastrous BREXIT policy that was mainly responsible along with Boris being able to reach parts other Tories couldn't with his oven ready deal and levelling up.
    SKS had to pacify 2 different target audiences and didn't have the ability to make the final decision.

    He hasn't got that issue now.
  • FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Does Lord Cruddas have any idea how dangerous this sort of thing is to the fabric of democracy ?

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1645515/Boris-Johnson-coup-legal-challenge-Tory-membership-high-court-bid-Lord-Cruddas-update

    Boris Johnson might not be a January 6th Trump but some of his supporters are.

    Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
    The degradation of the House of Lords with these sorts of people isn't new (the ghost of Lloyd-George says hello).

    But it has surely accelerated in recent years and will hasten the institution's decline.

    It was just about justifiable when it was a retirement home for ex-cabinet ministers who knew about running a department, genuine members of the Great and Good, and a smattering of bishops. The hereditary peers were always very odd, but at least there's an element of the lottery of birth.

    But it's now packed with oddballs whose presence is entirely bought and paid for, both in cash donations and slavish loyalty to an appointing individual.
  • eek said:

    If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS was architect of Labours disastrous BREXIT policy that was mainly responsible along with Boris being able to reach parts other Tories couldn't with his oven ready deal and levelling up.
    SKS had to pacify 2 different target audiences and didn't have the ability to make the final decision.

    He hasn't got that issue now.
    It was John McDonnell that was the one who pushed through the policy
  • https://twitter.com/The_TUC/status/1551500636033875969

    No.

    There should be a publicly-owned competitor. Nationalising all of the big companies is cloud cuckoo land stuff
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,796

    If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS will do worse than 2017 in terms of votes and probably seats IMO
    Seats are the only thing that matters.

    2017 was a terrible result compared to 2005, you know when Labour won
    But much better than 2010 and 2015 when new Labour actually lost.

    What does Lab even stand for now?
    It'd be nice to have a solid vision from SKS. But if Labour only 'stood' for removing this government from power, I'd be inclined to seriously consider voting for them.

    There's zero way I'd vote for a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    (This is where you tell me Labour doesn't need my vote...)
  • If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS will do worse than 2017 in terms of votes and probably seats IMO
    Seats are the only thing that matters.

    2017 was a terrible result compared to 2005, you know when Labour won
    But much better than 2010 and 2015 when new Labour actually lost.

    What does Lab even stand for now?
    It'd be nice to have a solid vision from SKS. But if Labour only 'stood' for removing this government from power, I'd be inclined to seriously consider voting for them.

    There's zero way I'd vote for a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    (This is where you tell me Labour doesn't need my vote...)
    We want your vote
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,848

    If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS will do worse than 2017 in terms of votes and probably seats IMO
    Seats are the only thing that matters.

    2017 was a terrible result compared to 2005, you know when Labour won
    But much better than 2010 and 2015 when new Labour actually lost.

    What does Lab even stand for now?
    I would hope fairness of opportunity for all. If it does not you are correct and you might as well vote for ideological extremists like Truss, Johnson or Corbyn.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,018
    edited July 26

    If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS will do worse than 2017 in terms of votes and probably seats IMO
    Seats are the only thing that matters.

    2017 was a terrible result compared to 2005, you know when Labour won
    But much better than 2010 and 2015 when new Labour actually lost.

    What does Lab even stand for now?
    Better than 2010? How?
    LAB lost their majority in 2010 and the Tories took over.

    In 2017 they had the largest increase in vote since WW2 and the Tories lost their majority.

    Without diverting funds from winnable marginals to no hope anti Corbyn seats it would have been an even better result in 2017
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,810
    IshmaelZ said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Unpopular said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Does Lord Cruddas have any idea how dangerous this sort of thing is to the fabric of democracy ?

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1645515/Boris-Johnson-coup-legal-challenge-Tory-membership-high-court-bid-Lord-Cruddas-update

    Boris Johnson might not be a January 6th Trump but some of his supporters are.

    Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
    Surely the High Court will just tell them to fuck off?
    I can't understand what the basis of the case would be?
    SCHEDULE 2
    RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
    1 The Leader shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members.
    2 A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent
    Leadership election.
    Election of Leader
    3 Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to
    the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for
    deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall
    be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.
    4 If there is only one candidate at the time laid down for the close of nominations, that candidate shall be
    declared Leader of the Party.
    5 Only those Party Members and Scottish Party Members who were members of the Party from the time
    of the call for nominations by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee for the election of the Leader and
    have been members for at least three months immediately prior to the close of the ballot for the election
    of the Leader shall be entitled to vote.
    6 A candidate achieving more than 50% of the vote among the Party Membership shall be declared elected
    Leader of the Party.
    7 In the event of there being only one valid nomination at the close of nominations prior to the first ballot
    being held by the Parliamentary Party for the election of the new Leader, the election of the nominee
    may if so ordered by the Board be ratified by a ballot of the Party Members and Scottish Party Members
    to be held within one month of the close of nomination.
    8 Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the rules for the conduct of the ballot or ballots of Party
    Members and Scottish Party Members shall be agreed by the Board and the Executive Committee of the
    1922 Committee.
    9 The Chairman of the 1922 Committee, acting on behalf of the Party, shall act as Returning Officer for all
    stages of the election.

    Sir Graham Brady needs to tell Lord Cruddas to fuck off.
    Has phatboi actually resigned from the leadership of the party? If yes: no case

    If no was he unfairly excluded from the rule 3 selection process? If yes: case. The rules are the basis of a contract between party and member, who can sue for breach of them.
    Turns on "resigning".
    What is the mechanism for this? Is there one? In writing?
    It may be that the "decent chap" issue arises again.
  • If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS will do worse than 2017 in terms of votes and probably seats IMO
    Seats are the only thing that matters.

    2017 was a terrible result compared to 2005, you know when Labour won
    But much better than 2010 and 2015 when new Labour actually lost.

    What does Lab even stand for now?
    Better than 2010? How?
    LAB lost their majority in 2010 and the Tories took over.

    In 2017 they had the largest vote since WW2 and the Tories lost their majority.

    Without diverting funds from winnable marginals to no hope anti Corbyn seats it would have been an even better result in 2017
    Labour was closer to Government in 2010 than 2017, I am happy to debate Corbynism but let's stick to the facts.

    The job of Labour is to win seats, to win power and make change. Vote counts are irrelevant
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,258
    @iainmartin1
    Starting to think Rishi Sunak, or his team, have made a genuinely catastrophic error on campaign strategy, misreading the situation. They decided way to get Truss was on inflation, tax and economy (even though he was Chancellor until a few weeks ago)... But...

    Wouldn't he have been far better aiming high? To be ultra-Prime Ministerial, endless contrasts with Johnson, emphasise his ability to listen and create order, which is going to be needed considering what's coming this winter. Instead he seems quite inflexible and even angry.


    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1551865462908194819
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,810

    If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS will do worse than 2017 in terms of votes and probably seats IMO
    Seats are the only thing that matters.

    2017 was a terrible result compared to 2005, you know when Labour won
    But much better than 2010 and 2015 when new Labour actually lost.

    What does Lab even stand for now?
    It'd be nice to have a solid vision from SKS. But if Labour only 'stood' for removing this government from power, I'd be inclined to seriously consider voting for them.

    There's zero way I'd vote for a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    (This is where you tell me Labour doesn't need my vote...)
    We want your vote
    And, more importantly, need it as well.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,848

    Let tyrants fear, for Liz has the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too!

    Indeed, by the time she is through, England may be all that is left of the Union.
  • Labour's purpose is not to trend on Twitter, or to move the window a bit to the left, or to go on marches.

    Labour's purpose is to win power and make positive change. Without that, we are nothing.

    "Power without principle is barren, but principle without power is futile." Keir Starmer is the only Labour leader to have understood this since Blair.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449
    dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Unpopular said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Does Lord Cruddas have any idea how dangerous this sort of thing is to the fabric of democracy ?

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1645515/Boris-Johnson-coup-legal-challenge-Tory-membership-high-court-bid-Lord-Cruddas-update

    Boris Johnson might not be a January 6th Trump but some of his supporters are.

    Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
    Surely the High Court will just tell them to fuck off?
    I can't understand what the basis of the case would be?
    SCHEDULE 2
    RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
    1 The Leader shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members.
    2 A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent
    Leadership election.
    Election of Leader
    3 Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to
    the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for
    deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall
    be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.
    4 If there is only one candidate at the time laid down for the close of nominations, that candidate shall be
    declared Leader of the Party.
    5 Only those Party Members and Scottish Party Members who were members of the Party from the time
    of the call for nominations by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee for the election of the Leader and
    have been members for at least three months immediately prior to the close of the ballot for the election
    of the Leader shall be entitled to vote.
    6 A candidate achieving more than 50% of the vote among the Party Membership shall be declared elected
    Leader of the Party.
    7 In the event of there being only one valid nomination at the close of nominations prior to the first ballot
    being held by the Parliamentary Party for the election of the new Leader, the election of the nominee
    may if so ordered by the Board be ratified by a ballot of the Party Members and Scottish Party Members
    to be held within one month of the close of nomination.
    8 Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the rules for the conduct of the ballot or ballots of Party
    Members and Scottish Party Members shall be agreed by the Board and the Executive Committee of the
    1922 Committee.
    9 The Chairman of the 1922 Committee, acting on behalf of the Party, shall act as Returning Officer for all
    stages of the election.

    Sir Graham Brady needs to tell Lord Cruddas to fuck off.
    Has phatboi actually resigned from the leadership of the party? If yes: no case

    If no was he unfairly excluded from the rule 3 selection process? If yes: case. The rules are the basis of a contract between party and member, who can sue for breach of them.
    Turns on "resigning".
    What is the mechanism for this? Is there one? In writing?
    It may be that the "decent chap" issue arises again.
    I think he hasn't. It's a key technique for him to sound as if he has said things he hasn't. Inverted pyramid of piffle sounds like but is not a flat denial. Same with his non resignation resignation.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,697
    Britain on verge of worst drought since 1976 with strict hosepipe bans likely as weather hots up again

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19315851/britain-drought-hosepipe-bans/
  • Unpopular said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Does Lord Cruddas have any idea how dangerous this sort of thing is to the fabric of democracy ?

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1645515/Boris-Johnson-coup-legal-challenge-Tory-membership-high-court-bid-Lord-Cruddas-update

    Boris Johnson might not be a January 6th Trump but some of his supporters are.

    Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
    Surely the High Court will just tell them to fuck off?
    As the US courts did to Trump.

    But, regrettably, legal action is no longer seen by some people as about resolving genuine disputes of fact and law, but as a form of campaigning where it isn't the judgment that matters but the perception.

    A friend formerly in the Government Legal Service recounts cases where ministers have been advised that their legal case is hopeless, but they pursue it anyway. They actively prefer to be blocked by the courts (even at substantial cost to the taxpayer, and with the delay and inconvenience essentially vexatious cases bring) than to get the policy right as one might hope if one gives a sh1t about the rule of law.

    Governments have always lost cases at court of course, but there's a world of difference between losing on balance with a reasonable legal and factual argument and wasting court time - between unsuccessful litigants and vexatious ones.

    The reaction to losses has also changed massively. There was a fairly standard response of, "We thank the judge for their careful consideration, and will read the judgment in detail before deciding next steps". Now they turn their fire on the judges - witness Johnson's parting shot at Baroness Hale (a swipe given an air of casual sexism as well given Hale was just one of nine judges who unanimously found against Johnson's illegal prorogation).
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,018

    If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS will do worse than 2017 in terms of votes and probably seats IMO
    Seats are the only thing that matters.

    2017 was a terrible result compared to 2005, you know when Labour won
    But much better than 2010 and 2015 when new Labour actually lost.

    What does Lab even stand for now?
    Better than 2010? How?
    LAB lost their majority in 2010 and the Tories took over.

    In 2017 they had the largest vote since WW2 and the Tories lost their majority.

    Without diverting funds from winnable marginals to no hope anti Corbyn seats it would have been an even better result in 2017
    Labour was closer to Government in 2010 than 2017, I am happy to debate Corbynism but let's stick to the facts.

    The job of Labour is to win seats, to win power and make change. Vote counts are irrelevant
    I am happy to debate Corbynism but let's stick to the facts. Forde contains several facts you will not be willing to debate.

    "Antisemitism was used for factional purposes" and the fact right wing staffers "diverted funds away from winnable Marginals" to other Right Wing Candidates in non marginal seats for factional purposes

    What changes is Labour offering now?

  • DriverDriver Posts: 478
    IshmaelZ said:

    dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Unpopular said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Does Lord Cruddas have any idea how dangerous this sort of thing is to the fabric of democracy ?

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1645515/Boris-Johnson-coup-legal-challenge-Tory-membership-high-court-bid-Lord-Cruddas-update

    Boris Johnson might not be a January 6th Trump but some of his supporters are.

    Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
    Surely the High Court will just tell them to fuck off?
    I can't understand what the basis of the case would be?
    SCHEDULE 2
    RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
    1 The Leader shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members.
    2 A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent
    Leadership election.
    Election of Leader
    3 Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to
    the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for
    deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall
    be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.
    4 If there is only one candidate at the time laid down for the close of nominations, that candidate shall be
    declared Leader of the Party.
    5 Only those Party Members and Scottish Party Members who were members of the Party from the time
    of the call for nominations by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee for the election of the Leader and
    have been members for at least three months immediately prior to the close of the ballot for the election
    of the Leader shall be entitled to vote.
    6 A candidate achieving more than 50% of the vote among the Party Membership shall be declared elected
    Leader of the Party.
    7 In the event of there being only one valid nomination at the close of nominations prior to the first ballot
    being held by the Parliamentary Party for the election of the new Leader, the election of the nominee
    may if so ordered by the Board be ratified by a ballot of the Party Members and Scottish Party Members
    to be held within one month of the close of nomination.
    8 Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the rules for the conduct of the ballot or ballots of Party
    Members and Scottish Party Members shall be agreed by the Board and the Executive Committee of the
    1922 Committee.
    9 The Chairman of the 1922 Committee, acting on behalf of the Party, shall act as Returning Officer for all
    stages of the election.

    Sir Graham Brady needs to tell Lord Cruddas to fuck off.
    Has phatboi actually resigned from the leadership of the party? If yes: no case

    If no was he unfairly excluded from the rule 3 selection process? If yes: case. The rules are the basis of a contract between party and member, who can sue for breach of them.
    Turns on "resigning".
    What is the mechanism for this? Is there one? In writing?
    It may be that the "decent chap" issue arises again.
    I think he hasn't. It's a key technique for him to sound as if he has said things he hasn't. Inverted pyramid of piffle sounds like but is not a flat denial. Same with his non resignation resignation.
    If he hasn't resigned as party leader, then how has the party held a leadership contest?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,697
    Tuesday’s @EveningStandard #Conservative #ConservativeLeadershipContest #ConservativeLeadership #cartoon #cartoonoftheday https://twitter.com/Adamstoon1/status/1551867927082799104/photo/1


  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,018
    Driver said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Unpopular said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Does Lord Cruddas have any idea how dangerous this sort of thing is to the fabric of democracy ?

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1645515/Boris-Johnson-coup-legal-challenge-Tory-membership-high-court-bid-Lord-Cruddas-update

    Boris Johnson might not be a January 6th Trump but some of his supporters are.

    Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
    Surely the High Court will just tell them to fuck off?
    I can't understand what the basis of the case would be?
    SCHEDULE 2
    RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
    1 The Leader shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members.
    2 A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent
    Leadership election.
    Election of Leader
    3 Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to
    the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for
    deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall
    be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.
    4 If there is only one candidate at the time laid down for the close of nominations, that candidate shall be
    declared Leader of the Party.
    5 Only those Party Members and Scottish Party Members who were members of the Party from the time
    of the call for nominations by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee for the election of the Leader and
    have been members for at least three months immediately prior to the close of the ballot for the election
    of the Leader shall be entitled to vote.
    6 A candidate achieving more than 50% of the vote among the Party Membership shall be declared elected
    Leader of the Party.
    7 In the event of there being only one valid nomination at the close of nominations prior to the first ballot
    being held by the Parliamentary Party for the election of the new Leader, the election of the nominee
    may if so ordered by the Board be ratified by a ballot of the Party Members and Scottish Party Members
    to be held within one month of the close of nomination.
    8 Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the rules for the conduct of the ballot or ballots of Party
    Members and Scottish Party Members shall be agreed by the Board and the Executive Committee of the
    1922 Committee.
    9 The Chairman of the 1922 Committee, acting on behalf of the Party, shall act as Returning Officer for all
    stages of the election.

    Sir Graham Brady needs to tell Lord Cruddas to fuck off.
    Has phatboi actually resigned from the leadership of the party? If yes: no case

    If no was he unfairly excluded from the rule 3 selection process? If yes: case. The rules are the basis of a contract between party and member, who can sue for breach of them.
    Turns on "resigning".
    What is the mechanism for this? Is there one? In writing?
    It may be that the "decent chap" issue arises again.
    I think he hasn't. It's a key technique for him to sound as if he has said things he hasn't. Inverted pyramid of piffle sounds like but is not a flat denial. Same with his non resignation resignation.
    If he hasn't resigned as party leader, then how has the party held a leadership contest?
    Is that not why there is a legal challenge?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 478

    Unpopular said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Does Lord Cruddas have any idea how dangerous this sort of thing is to the fabric of democracy ?

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1645515/Boris-Johnson-coup-legal-challenge-Tory-membership-high-court-bid-Lord-Cruddas-update

    Boris Johnson might not be a January 6th Trump but some of his supporters are.

    Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
    Surely the High Court will just tell them to fuck off?
    As the US courts did to Trump.

    But, regrettably, legal action is no longer seen by some people as about resolving genuine disputes of fact and law, but as a form of campaigning where it isn't the judgment that matters but the perception.

    A friend formerly in the Government Legal Service recounts cases where ministers have been advised that their legal case is hopeless, but they pursue it anyway. They actively prefer to be blocked by the courts (even at substantial cost to the taxpayer, and with the delay and inconvenience essentially vexatious cases bring) than to get the policy right as one might hope if one gives a sh1t about the rule of law.

    Governments have always lost cases at court of course, but there's a world of difference between losing on balance with a reasonable legal and factual argument and wasting court time - between unsuccessful litigants and vexatious ones.

    The reaction to losses has also changed massively. There was a fairly standard response of, "We thank the judge for their careful consideration, and will read the judgment in detail before deciding next steps". Now they turn their fire on the judges - witness Johnson's parting shot at Baroness Hale (a swipe given an air of casual sexism as well given Hale was just one of nine judges who unanimously found against Johnson's illegal prorogation).
    She was president of the supreme court and is therefore the person most closely associated with that bullshit judgement.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294

    If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS will do worse than 2017 in terms of votes and probably seats IMO
    Seats are the only thing that matters.

    2017 was a terrible result compared to 2005, you know when Labour won
    But much better than 2010 and 2015 when new Labour actually lost.

    What does Lab even stand for now?
    Better than 2010? How?
    LAB lost their majority in 2010 and the Tories took over.

    In 2017 they had the largest vote since WW2 and the Tories lost their majority.

    Without diverting funds from winnable marginals to no hope anti Corbyn seats it would have been an even better result in 2017
    Labour was closer to Government in 2010 than 2017, I am happy to debate Corbynism but let's stick to the facts.

    The job of Labour is to win seats, to win power and make change. Vote counts are irrelevant
    I am happy to debate Corbynism but let's stick to the facts. Forde contains several facts you will not be willing to debate.

    "Antisemitism was used for factional purposes" and the fact right wing staffers "diverted funds away from winnable Marginals" to other Right Wing Candidates in non marginal seats for factional purposes

    What changes is Labour offering now?

    Less racism?
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,663
    When do we get a "jan 6th " moment?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,402
    https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/9211515/subway-bosses-targeting-rangers-fans/

    Subway union bosses ‘cynically targeting’ Rangers fans with matchday strikes

    Union members have voted to walk out on Saturday, August 6 when Gers host Kilmarnock then on Tuesday, August 9, when the club’s Champions League qualifier against Belgian side Union Saint-Gilloise take place.

    The third is on Saturday, August 13, when the Ibrox side play St Johnstone in the league followed by Saturday August 27, when they host Ross County in the Premiership.

    Making clear the move was aimed at footie disruption, Unite announced “the first Rangers home game of the season against Kilmarnock” is “set to be hit by the walkout”.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,796

    If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS will do worse than 2017 in terms of votes and probably seats IMO
    Seats are the only thing that matters.

    2017 was a terrible result compared to 2005, you know when Labour won
    But much better than 2010 and 2015 when new Labour actually lost.

    What does Lab even stand for now?
    It'd be nice to have a solid vision from SKS. But if Labour only 'stood' for removing this government from power, I'd be inclined to seriously consider voting for them.

    There's zero way I'd vote for a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    (This is where you tell me Labour doesn't need my vote...)
    We want your vote
    I am not enthused by any of the parties atm.
    *) Neither of the Conservative candidates appear to be offering what I want for the country.
    *) Starmer seems an empty vessel atm.
    *) Davey is invisible.

    But the big difference id that I am finding the Tories positively repellent at the moment. Mordaunt would have been better. Badenoch would have been interesting. Tugendhat would have been boringly competent.

    Sunak appears out of touch and clueless.
    Truss appears a little mad.

    I doubt either of them could persuade me to vote for them.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 3,350

    If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS will do worse than 2017 in terms of votes and probably seats IMO
    Seats are the only thing that matters.

    2017 was a terrible result compared to 2005, you know when Labour won
    But much better than 2010 and 2015 when new Labour actually lost.

    What does Lab even stand for now?
    Better than 2010? How?
    LAB lost their majority in 2010 and the Tories took over.

    In 2017 they had the largest vote since WW2 and the Tories lost their majority.

    Without diverting funds from winnable marginals to no hope anti Corbyn seats it would have been an even better result in 2017
    Labour was closer to Government in 2010 than 2017, I am happy to debate Corbynism but let's stick to the facts.

    The job of Labour is to win seats, to win power and make change. Vote counts are irrelevant
    I am happy to debate Corbynism but let's stick to the facts. Forde contains several facts you will not be willing to debate.

    "Antisemitism was used for factional purposes" and the fact right wing staffers "diverted funds away from winnable Marginals" to other Right Wing Candidates in non marginal seats for factional purposes

    What changes is Labour offering now?

    How dare they use our antisemitism against us
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 34,082
    edited July 26

    Let tyrants fear, for Liz has the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too!

    Indeed, by the time she is through, England may be all that is left of the Union.
    Still, pm of a bit of a sceptred isle is better than nowt.
    We’ll put up a blue plaque for fizzy Lizzy in Paisley to remind us of what we’ve lost.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,018
    edited July 26

    Labour's purpose is not to trend on Twitter, or to move the window a bit to the left, or to go on marches.

    Labour's purpose is to win power and make positive change. Without that, we are nothing.

    "Power without principle is barren, but principle without power is futile." Keir Starmer is the only Labour leader to have understood this since Blair.

    SKS is no Tony Blair. I voted for TB twice I will never vote for SKS

    He offered and delivered huge investment in Public Services

    SKS offers nothing
  • @bigjohnowls Well over 90% of the Jewish Community when asked think Labour is once again a safe space. That is a change and a good one.

    The Forde Report says that the factionalism was just as bad as on the left, as on the right. The party was a shit-show, as is evident from anyone who followed it. Of course you didn't mention 2019 when all those hated staffers had been sacked and we lost in our worst defeat since 1935. So the idea it made a huge difference in 2017 has clearly been debunked.

    Labour is currently as much as 11 points ahead. When Corbyn left Labour was 26 points behind. That's a change and a good one.

    But you see I actually like winning elections. You sit on losing election results and try to make out they're better than when we win. That is a route to opposition for life - and then how do we do anything for anyone?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 478

    If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS will do worse than 2017 in terms of votes and probably seats IMO
    Seats are the only thing that matters.

    2017 was a terrible result compared to 2005, you know when Labour won
    But much better than 2010 and 2015 when new Labour actually lost.

    What does Lab even stand for now?
    It'd be nice to have a solid vision from SKS. But if Labour only 'stood' for removing this government from power, I'd be inclined to seriously consider voting for them.

    There's zero way I'd vote for a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    (This is where you tell me Labour doesn't need my vote...)
    We want your vote
    I am not enthused by any of the parties atm.
    *) Neither of the Conservative candidates appear to be offering what I want for the country.
    *) Starmer seems an empty vessel atm.
    *) Davey is invisible.

    But the big difference id that I am finding the Tories positively repellent at the moment. Mordaunt would have been better. Badenoch would have been interesting. Tugendhat would have been boringly competent.

    Sunak appears out of touch and clueless.
    Truss appears a little mad.

    I doubt either of them could persuade me to vote for them.
    I'm in a similar space. If there were an election tomorrow I'd have to hope for a non-crazy independent.

    I think Truss has a better chance of persuading me than Sunak, as most of what we "know" about her is not really much more than characterisation of her by her opponents.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449
    "Good afternoon everybody,

    It is now clearly the will of the parliamentary conservative party that there should be a new leader of that party

    and therefore a new Prime Minister

    and I have agreed with Sir Graham Brady

    the chairman of our backbench MPs

    that the process of choosing that new leader should begin now

    and the timetable will be announced next week

    and I have today appointed a cabinet to serve - as I will - until a new leader is in place

    blah..."

    NO "I have resigned."
  • Driver said:

    If the Tories were in opposition right now and these were the two candidates to take them into Government, I think we'd be predicting how large the Labour victory was going to be.

    The reality is that after 12 years in office, it is always going to be difficult. We know this full well with what happened to Labour in 2010.

    I just do not feel like either of these people are the ones to stop a Labour victory. The idea of "change" is not coming from either of them to a sufficient degree. For all my utter hatred of the man and his policies, somehow Johnson delivered that perception. I do not buy that Liz Truss or Rishi Sunak are the same.

    If Labour's policies don't scare the horses and they stick to a few very basic things - NHS investment, more police officers, renewable energy, making Brexit work, FTTP etc - Keir Starmer really is a disaster if he loses. The scary factor is out, it's evident to anyone that Starmer is not going to do any real damage. And the SNP threat is also reduced by the fact Scottish Labour are now in second, so they are perceived as the opponents to the SNP - that is quite a big change.

    I like the odds of Labour as largest party. My central forecast remains 2010 in reverse for the next election. 1992 repeat for the Tories is their upside, Labour's best case is a tiny majority.

    11th July 2022 was peak SKS its all downhill from that Poll that gave LAB a 15% lead

    LAB: 43% (+2)
    CON: 28% (-4)
    LDEM: 12% (+1)
    GRN: 4% (+1)
    Remind me, how much did Corbyn lose by in 2019?
    SKS will do worse than 2017 in terms of votes and probably seats IMO
    Seats are the only thing that matters.

    2017 was a terrible result compared to 2005, you know when Labour won
    But much better than 2010 and 2015 when new Labour actually lost.

    What does Lab even stand for now?
    It'd be nice to have a solid vision from SKS. But if Labour only 'stood' for removing this government from power, I'd be inclined to seriously consider voting for them.

    There's zero way I'd vote for a Corbyn-led Labour party.

    (This is where you tell me Labour doesn't need my vote...)
    We want your vote
    I am not enthused by any of the parties atm.
    *) Neither of the Conservative candidates appear to be offering what I want for the country.
    *) Starmer seems an empty vessel atm.
    *) Davey is invisible.

    But the big difference id that I am finding the Tories positively repellent at the moment. Mordaunt would have been better. Badenoch would have been interesting. Tugendhat would have been boringly competent.

    Sunak appears out of touch and clueless.
    Truss appears a little mad.

    I doubt either of them could persuade me to vote for them.
    I'm in a similar space. If there were an election tomorrow I'd have to hope for a non-crazy independent.

    I think Truss has a better chance of persuading me than Sunak, as most of what we "know" about her is not really much more than characterisation of her by her opponents.
    Truss has the best chance of surprising on the upside. On the other hand my gut says she will be at best ineffective - and my gut was right about BoJo
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449
    Tomorrow is 10 years after 2012 Olympics opening ceremony.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 478
    IshmaelZ said:

    "Good afternoon everybody, It is now clearly the will of the parliamentary conservative party that there should be a new leader of that party and therefore a new Prime Minister and I have agreed with Sir Graham Brady the chairman of our backbench MPs that the process of choosing that new leader should begin now and the timetable will be announced next week and I have today appointed a cabinet to serve - as I will - until a new leader is in place blah..."

    NO "I have resigned."

    (line breaks taken out to make it readable)

    The only way that Sir Graham could start a leadership election is by accepting a resignation.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,119
    edited July 26
    Driver said:

    Unpopular said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Does Lord Cruddas have any idea how dangerous this sort of thing is to the fabric of democracy ?

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1645515/Boris-Johnson-coup-legal-challenge-Tory-membership-high-court-bid-Lord-Cruddas-update

    Boris Johnson might not be a January 6th Trump but some of his supporters are.

    Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
    Surely the High Court will just tell them to fuck off?
    As the US courts did to Trump.

    But, regrettably, legal action is no longer seen by some people as about resolving genuine disputes of fact and law, but as a form of campaigning where it isn't the judgment that matters but the perception.

    A friend formerly in the Government Legal Service recounts cases where ministers have been advised that their legal case is hopeless, but they pursue it anyway. They actively prefer to be blocked by the courts (even at substantial cost to the taxpayer, and with the delay and inconvenience essentially vexatious cases bring) than to get the policy right as one might hope if one gives a sh1t about the rule of law.

    Governments have always lost cases at court of course, but there's a world of difference between losing on balance with a reasonable legal and factual argument and wasting court time - between unsuccessful litigants and vexatious ones.

    The reaction to losses has also changed massively. There was a fairly standard response of, "We thank the judge for their careful consideration, and will read the judgment in detail before deciding next steps". Now they turn their fire on the judges - witness Johnson's parting shot at Baroness Hale (a swipe given an air of casual sexism as well given Hale was just one of nine judges who unanimously found against Johnson's illegal prorogation).
    She was president of the supreme court and is therefore the person most closely associated with that bullshit judgement.
    Bill Clinton was a master of using the courts for triangulation -

    To group A - “I really wanted to pander to your idiocy but the Supreme Court. Damn the lawyers.”

    To group B - “I used played a game where I got a law/regulation in front of the SC who have now created a ruling. So you’ve got what you wanted, set in legal precedent.”

    EDIT: very much so on the use of law suits as campaigns - to bear a fox etc…

    The other thing is the casual, American style of suing everyone, almost as a default.

    A relative, who runs a building business had some fun - a couple of high end clients sued, to try and reduce their bills via bullshit and law fare. Being idiots, they hadn’t actually read their contracts. Which included a binding arbitration setup for disputes. So, by going straight to law, they had flagrantly broken the contract….
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,087

    @iainmartin1
    Starting to think Rishi Sunak, or his team, have made a genuinely catastrophic error on campaign strategy, misreading the situation. They decided way to get Truss was on inflation, tax and economy (even though he was Chancellor until a few weeks ago)... But...

    Wouldn't he have been far better aiming high? To be ultra-Prime Ministerial, endless contrasts with Johnson, emphasise his ability to listen and create order, which is going to be needed considering what's coming this winter. Instead he seems quite inflexible and even angry.


    https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1551865462908194819

    He appears not to have realised that his tax increases were genuinely and widely unpopular. If he had blamed Johnson's profligate spending demands for the tax rises, and promised to cut taxes by keeping control of spending, then he might have stood a better chance of winning.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,697
    IshmaelZ said:

    Tomorrow is 10 years after 2012 Olympics opening ceremony.

    Ten years since London 2012. I remember watching the opening ceremony and thinking “we’ve cracked it — progressive, inclusive, outward looking, and everyone’s cheering”. It’s the most wrong I’ve been since predicting in 1987 that London house prices could not rise any higher. https://twitter.com/RevRichardColes/status/1551692302367834113/photo/1
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449
    Driver said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    "Good afternoon everybody, It is now clearly the will of the parliamentary conservative party that there should be a new leader of that party and therefore a new Prime Minister and I have agreed with Sir Graham Brady the chairman of our backbench MPs that the process of choosing that new leader should begin now and the timetable will be announced next week and I have today appointed a cabinet to serve - as I will - until a new leader is in place blah..."

    NO "I have resigned."

    (line breaks taken out to make it readable)

    The only way that Sir Graham could start a leadership election is by accepting a resignation.
    I am not making a case, I am taking the bare fact that somebody else is, and trying to reverse engineer what that case might be. It seems to me not impossible that Brady may have fallen into a "good chap" trap in which obviously Boris has resigned, or we wouldn't be having this conversation" when actually Boris hasn't.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,697
    Driver said:

    The only way that Sir Graham could start a leadership election is by accepting a resignation.

    He hasn't resigned.

    Who is the PM, right now?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,018

    @bigjohnowls Well over 90% of the Jewish Community when asked think Labour is once again a safe space. That is a change and a good one.

    The Forde Report says that the factionalism was just as bad as on the left, as on the right. The party was a shit-show, as is evident from anyone who followed it. Of course you didn't mention 2019 when all those hated staffers had been sacked and we lost in our worst defeat since 1935. So the idea it made a huge difference in 2017 has clearly been debunked.

    Labour is currently as much as 11 points ahead. When Corbyn left Labour was 26 points behind. That's a change and a good one.

    But you see I actually like winning elections. You sit on losing election results and try to make out they're better than when we win. That is a route to opposition for life - and then how do we do anything for anyone?

    You haven;t read the Forde report have you.

    It was right wing Labour staffers in 2017 that wanted Labour to lose, and diverted funds away from winnable seats not me. I presume you approve?

    Anti Semitism was exaggerated the disciplinary process on it slowed down by right wing staffers for factional purposes
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Unpopular said:

    FPT

    Pulpstar said:

    Does Lord Cruddas have any idea how dangerous this sort of thing is to the fabric of democracy ?

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1645515/Boris-Johnson-coup-legal-challenge-Tory-membership-high-court-bid-Lord-Cruddas-update

    Boris Johnson might not be a January 6th Trump but some of his supporters are.

    Just to be safe he needs to be kicked out of parliament by the privileges committee.
    Surely the High Court will just tell them to fuck off?
    I can't understand what the basis of the case would be?
    SCHEDULE 2
    RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
    1 The Leader shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members.
    2 A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent
    Leadership election.
    Election of Leader
    3 Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to
    the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for
    deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall
    be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.
    4 If there is only one candidate at the time laid down for the close of nominations, that candidate shall be
    declared Leader of the Party.
    5 Only those Party Members and Scottish Party Members who were members of the Party from the time
    of the call for nominations by the Chairman of the 1922 Committee for the election of the Leader and
    have been members for at least three months immediately prior to the close of the ballot for the election
    of the Leader shall be entitled to vote.
    6 A candidate achieving more than 50% of the vote among the Party Membership shall be declared elected
    Leader of the Party.
    7 In the event of there being only one valid nomination at the close of nominations prior to the first ballot
    being held by the Parliamentary Party for the election of the new Leader, the election of the nominee
    may if so ordered by the Board be ratified by a ballot of the Party Members and Scottish Party Members
    to be held within one month of the close of nomination.
    8 Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the rules for the conduct of the ballot or ballots of Party
    Members and Scottish Party Members shall be agreed by the Board and the Executive Committee of the
    1922 Committee.
    9 The Chairman of the 1922 Committee, acting on behalf of the Party, shall act as Returning Officer for all
    stages of the election.

    Sir Graham Brady needs to tell Lord Cruddas to fuck off.
    Has phatboi actually resigned from the leadership of the party? If yes: no case

    If no was he unfairly excluded from the rule 3 selection process? If yes: case. The rules are the basis of a contract between party and member, who can sue for breach of them.
    The rules of the 1922 Committee don't actually matter that much in terms of the case Cruddas is apparently trying to make.

    The issue is the British Constitution, whereby the PM is the person capable of forming a Government with the confidence of the House of Commons. That doesn't have to be the de jure leader of the majority party... indeed the Government has just won a confidence vote held after Johnson ceased to be leader of the Conservative Party.

    Cruddas is faffing about with the legality of 1922 Committee rules. As you say, his case looks weak there. But even if it didn't, it makes no difference as 1922 Committee rules are about electing a party leader, not a PM. You will struggle to find a single Tory MP who would say the winner of the members' ballot between Truss and Sunak should not become PM and that they would not have confidence in the Government formed.

    So even if, by some miracle, Cruddas showed the Conservative Party rules were defective and the winner is not technically Conservative leader, it would make no difference as they'd be able to form a Government with the confidence of the Commons, and Johnson wouldn't.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,209
    Great analysis in the thread header.

    I would add, I am not sure this leadership election will damage the tories as much as people think.

    Voters are seeing senior politicians having to grapple with the issues that concern them instead of grandstanding with peers at summits or grabbing Ukraine photo opportunities.

    That might not actually play that badly.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 478
    Scott_xP said:

    Driver said:

    The only way that Sir Graham could start a leadership election is by accepting a resignation.

    He hasn't resigned.

    Who is the PM, right now?
    Resignation as party leader, not as PM, duh.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,697
    Downing Street was accused yesterday of lying about the impact of Brexit as the row over chaos at ports escalated
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-port-chaos-is-the-price-of-brexit-french-mp-says-c8dlxkfhf
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,584

    Ipswich Tory lady on R4 Today was wearing a "Margaret Thatcher dress"


    There's a reason they call it Silly Suffolk!
  • @bigjohnowls Well over 90% of the Jewish Community when asked think Labour is once again a safe space. That is a change and a good one.

    The Forde Report says that the factionalism was just as bad as on the left, as on the right. The party was a shit-show, as is evident from anyone who followed it. Of course you didn't mention 2019 when all those hated staffers had been sacked and we lost in our worst defeat since 1935. So the idea it made a huge difference in 2017 has clearly been debunked.

    Labour is currently as much as 11 points ahead. When Corbyn left Labour was 26 points behind. That's a change and a good one.

    But you see I actually like winning elections. You sit on losing election results and try to make out they're better than when we win. That is a route to opposition for life - and then how do we do anything for anyone?

    You haven;t read the Forde report have you.

    It was right wing Labour staffers in 2017 that wanted Labour to lose, and diverted funds away from winnable seats not me. I presume you approve?

    Anti Semitism was exaggerated the disciplinary process on it slowed down by right wing staffers for factional purposes
    Yes I read the full report, not the Wankbox version of it.

    It was inevitable when it came out and it wasn't the "smoking gun" Wankbox said it would be, we'd move onto lies and mis-representation.

    What it actually said was there was factionalism on the left and the right, the two sides hated each other and worked against each other. That clearly had an impact. But the left is not all virtuous in this, they were just as bad.

    Anti-Semitism was not exaggerated and the report does not say that. It says the party's processes were not setup to deal with it properly, which I said at the time. That wasn't entirely Corbyn's fault - but he was a moron with his stupid statement after the EHRC report
  • Scott_xP said:

    Driver said:

    The only way that Sir Graham could start a leadership election is by accepting a resignation.

    He hasn't resigned.

    Who is the PM, right now?
    He has resigned as Tory leader but remains as PM.

    There is no rule in the British Constitution that the PM must be the leader of any political party merely that they are able to form a Government with the confidence of the House of Commons. Johnson has in his caretaker administration (albeit on the basis it is a caretaker) - indeed they've just won a confidence vote.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,087
    Scott_xP said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Tomorrow is 10 years after 2012 Olympics opening ceremony.

    Ten years since London 2012. I remember watching the opening ceremony and thinking “we’ve cracked it — progressive, inclusive, outward looking, and everyone’s cheering”. It’s the most wrong I’ve been since predicting in 1987 that London house prices could not rise any higher. https://twitter.com/RevRichardColes/status/1551692302367834113/photo/1
    On the evening of the opening ceremony, or the closing ceremony, I forget which, I was walking around London when I came across a giant rat. Little did I know that this would prove to be symbolic of the next ten years...
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,580
    IshmaelZ said:

    Tomorrow is 10 years after 2012 Olympics opening ceremony.

    And we're still paying off the debt.
  • 2012 was the end of Britain's ease, it had found under Blair, sad times
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,145
    Political and financial types, this is an interesting video on China's banking sector and problems within it. Unfamiliar channel to me but the chap sounds level-headed. Heard anything about this?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N57doBGQTNY
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,697

    they'd be able to form a Government with the confidence of the Commons, and Johnson wouldn't.

    I have seen at least one commentator say that BoZo could return/continue "with a new team around him"

    Still sticking to the 'bad advisors' theory, despite BoZo burning through 3 sets so far with no apparent change in results
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,018
    Scott_xP said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Tomorrow is 10 years after 2012 Olympics opening ceremony.

    Ten years since London 2012. I remember watching the opening ceremony and thinking “we’ve cracked it — progressive, inclusive, outward looking, and everyone’s cheering”. It’s the most wrong I’ve been since predicting in 1987 that London house prices could not rise any higher. https://twitter.com/RevRichardColes/status/1551692302367834113/photo/1
    I was in hospital with a suspected heart attack. Thankfully it wasn't and I attended 5 days and 6 sports in the next fortnight including the never to be forgotten super Saturday
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294
    Scott_xP said:

    Downing Street was accused yesterday of lying about the impact of Brexit as the row over chaos at ports escalated
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-port-chaos-is-the-price-of-brexit-french-mp-says-c8dlxkfhf

    Downing St “was accused” - by a French MP - of the problem being something, anything, other than the French failure to sufficiently man their port.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,697

    He has resigned as Tory leader but remains as PM.

    He hasn't resigned as party leader.

    Who is the leader of the Tory Party, today?
  • Hey @Scott_xP how you doing matey?
This discussion has been closed.