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.
It was a unanimous judgement of the full court (minus one, to ensure an odd number). Essentially it limited Government power, which the court is well within its rights to decide issues of. If Johnson, or any prime minister, wishes to prorogue parliament for any reason all they need to do is seek Parliament's consent and the court cannot and will not touch it. In our constitutional system Parliament is sovereign. Indeed many Brexiters voted, under the misapprehension that it wasn't, to make it so.
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."
Yes, we noticed that. A deliberate piece of twattery from Johnson. He didn't resign, but agreed that they skip straight to the initiation of a leadership contest (clause 3 in the rules posted above). Leaving him wiggle room to come crashing onto the ballot.
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
You'll find at least one "commentator" saying any batsh1t crazy thing you care to name.
"Commentator" isn't a profession. It's a description of someone who has a mouthpiece and blasts their reckonings through it. Consumers of the media - you and I - need to apply some sensible filter to try to distinguish those worth listening to and those not. Just saying "at least one commentator says" is meaningless - who says it, and why should I place any weight on it?
"Rishi Sunak, who was running the economy... acting like he's just come down from the moon... Liz truss who's voted for 15 tax rises... making promises without telling us how she's going to fund them" Labour's Keir Starmer reacts to #BBCOurNextPM debate
@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
BJO, have you read "Jews don't count" by David Badidel? If not, I really urge you to do so. It was a real eye-opener for me, and at least one other PBer.
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...
And ten years hence that anecdote will end "and the family had its first square meal for weeks."
@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
His statement is supported by both the EHRC report and the Forde report
Regarding the @bigjohnowls and @CorrectHorseBattery row above, I refer both to my piece of satire earlier this morning. With last night's debate showing that the country faces an awful threat to the livelihoods of working people, the various chunks of Left Unity (stop laughing at the back) need to call a general strike.
An injustice has been done. A great leader, felled by his MPs against the members wishes. Imperilling the finances and rights of working folk. The strike should continue until Starmer finally steps down.
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?
Unlike almost everybody else, I listened to your speech on the economy, yesterday. You’ve done the first bit. Proven you’re not Corbyn. You’re unthreatening and competent.
Now you need to be exciting.
Take a risk or two.
Some bold policies, please.
I don’t want this Tory shitshow any more. Time to stand up and lead.
So I am today announcing that I will resign as leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party on Friday 7 June so that a successor can be chosen.
I have agreed with the Party Chairman and with the Chairman of the 1922 Committee that the process for electing a new leader should begin in the following week.
@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
His statement is supported by both the EHRC report and the Forde report
We will shortly be heading to Buckingham Palace to see Her Majesty the Queen, where I will tender my resignation as Prime Minister and I will advise Her Majesty to invite Theresa May to form a new administration.
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.
So. Why doesn't Boris have a quiet word with his mate that he's wasting his money? I mean, that would be simplest.
@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
His statement is supported by both the EHRC report and the Forde report
"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.
Asking the Chair of the 1922 to start a leadership election is resigning, whether the term is used or not.
@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
His statement is supported by both the EHRC report and the Forde report
@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
His statement is supported by both the EHRC report and the Forde report
"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.
Asking the Chair of the 1922 to start a leadership election is resigning, whether the term is used or not.
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.
So. Why doesn't Boris have a quiet word with his mate that he's wasting his money? I mean, that would be simplest.
Johnson wants to cultivate the myth of the stab in the back, as do individuals like Cruddas.
For that to work, there is no need to win any legal case (nobody likes lawyers and we've famously had enough of experts). For quite a few credulous nitwits to believe it just requires people like Cruddas spraying round a fog of bullsh1t on behalf of Johnson.
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.
So. Why doesn't Boris have a quiet word with his mate that he's wasting his money? I mean, that would be simplest.
Would you take advice from Boris on how to spend your money ?
Labour leader Keir Starmer says the Tory party has "absolutely lost the plot" after last night's televised debate on BBC One, describing Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak as "the architects of the mess this country is in" He says the government has its "head in the sand" and has been "paralysed" by the leadership contest
Never short of a turgid and lifeless metaphor, Sir Kieth. And the elephant in the room is, as he would say, that he'd have finished a comfortable third.
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.
It was a unanimous judgement of the full court (minus one, to ensure an odd number). Essentially it limited Government power, which the court is well within its rights to decide issues of. If Johnson, or any prime minister, wishes to prorogue parliament for any reason all they need to do is seek Parliament's consent and the court cannot and will not touch it. In our constitutional system Parliament is sovereign. Indeed many Brexiters voted, under the misapprehension that it wasn't, to make it so.
Thank you, at least, for accepting that the judgement changed the rules retrospectively. The consent of Parliament had never been needed for prorogation.
It was a bullshit judgement that interpreted a written law as meaning the exact opposite of what it said.
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.
So. Why doesn't Boris have a quiet word with his mate that he's wasting his money? I mean, that would be simplest.
Johnson wants to cultivate the myth of the stab in the back, as do individuals like Cruddas.
For that to work, there is no need to win any legal case (nobody likes lawyers and we've famously had enough of experts). For quite a few credulous nitwits to believe it just requires people like Cruddas spraying round a fog of bullsh1t on behalf of Johnson.
And Boris has no intention of making a comeback until his successor has been seen to have failed. Which he fully expects - as do most of us...
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.
So. Why doesn't Boris have a quiet word with his mate that he's wasting his money? I mean, that would be simplest.
Johnson wants to cultivate the myth of the stab in the back, as do individuals like Cruddas.
For that to work, there is no need to win any legal case (nobody likes lawyers and we've famously had enough of experts). For quite a few credulous nitwits to believe it just requires people like Cruddas spraying round a fog of bullsh1t on behalf of Johnson.
Well quite. I suspect he wants some dispute about the resignation question because that signals weakness. He'd much rather be seen as having been unfairly forced out by shadowy forces, rather than having lost the confidence of the majority of his MP's and most of his Cabinet.
In case anyone missed it (I posted it at about 2am)
Which raises the question: does she not care? Took me 2 mins to google that
Is she trolling?
On the upside, looks like we’re about to have our first kinkster prime minister (I am discounting the lurid rumours about Pitt the Younger)
Putin is also a switch, apparently.
‘Putin performs both sides of the humiliation drama: from the seething resentment of the put-upon Russian everyman to cosplaying Peter the Great. This allows him to appeal to Russians’ sense of humiliation, which the Kremlin itself inflicts on people, and then compensate for it.’ https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1551845049486524416
Boris Johnson has resigned as leader of the Conservative party and plans to stay on as prime minister until a new party leader is elected by the autumn.
Really, this "Boris hasn't really resigned" is pure conspiracy theory bollocks.
@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
His statement is supported by both the EHRC report and the Forde report
Corbyn said anti-Semitism was exaggerated. The Forde Report says he is wrong. I knew you hadn't actually read it.
Both reports say it was. What do you think used as a tool for factional purposes means.
You either havent read either or are blinded by your prejudices.
You still havent answered what Labour stands for now BTW.
I know its a difficult one as Reeves says one thing and the Shadow transport Minister says the opposite within hours but have a stab at it.
Labour stands for opportunity for all, bringing back competence, decency, integrity and responsibility to public life.
The first good laugh I've had in ages.
Labour stands for opportunity for its client groups - public sector workers and minorities (as long as they're not successful).
As for competence and decency, where's the evidence that Starmer is either? I keep on asking this, and nobody ever replies. He ran on a Corbynite manifesto in 2019, and again in 2020 to get elected, and has since completely ditched it. Is that kind of dishonesty really the behaviour of a decent man? His Brexit solution was dishonest, incomprehensible and ineffective, and if it were up to him we would have been in the much slower EU vaccine programme and probably still locked down.
Boris Johnson has resigned as leader of the Conservative party and plans to stay on as prime minister until a new party leader is elected by the autumn.
Really, this "Boris hasn't really resigned" is pure conspiracy theory bollocks.
You don't do nuance do you?
Nor theory of mind. I think that some one else thinks that x, does not reduce to I think that x.
Glad to hear it, you are one my favourite posters.
Guaranteed yourself a like there. Though probably just the one.
I am not looking for likes, even though it is of course nice when they are received. I receive yours with my thanks.
My happiest moments are when I get likes across the political spectrum, as I try my best to operate from the centre ground where I can, this is where my natural politics is, I think. I'd probably be quite happy in the Lib Dems.
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?
The Chinese model has an issue where political power meets commerce.
In a way it reminds me of the… Elizabethan era, when the crown attempted to turn commerce into property (monopolies) and hand it to The Right People.
The people with political power believe the wealth is there for them to drink from, by right of their position. The ones not at the top of The Party, who have built businesses are quite sure about that
So, your Chinese bank may be motoring along doing its thing, when the local Big Cheese in the party rocks up. And wants a loan for his cousin to build a farm for genetically modified, giant, angry, amphibious halibut. 500 miles from salt water. You can either go against the party or….
Don’t worry, if the loan goes bad, you will be the one hauled in front of a Peoples Court….
Frabjous day, two financial places have emailed me to say they are putting up interest rates, and not lunchtime yet. 1.45% makes me laugh in the face of inflation.
@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
His statement is supported by both the EHRC report and the Forde report
I am sure some people will disagree with my analysis that I am of the centre ground, especially after my collapse into Corbynism. But I was more of the centre before that and I try to be after.
I'm personally only really in favour of nationalising the railways.
The Tories are so diverse and achingly woke. They're going to skip the ethnic minority leader stage and leap straight to the owned and collared sub. Wonder if she has a barcode tattoo?
Boris Johnson has resigned as leader of the Conservative party and plans to stay on as prime minister until a new party leader is elected by the autumn.
Really, this "Boris hasn't really resigned" is pure conspiracy theory bollocks.
You don't do nuance do you?
Nor theory of mind. I think that some one else thinks that x, does not reduce to I think that x.
Boris Johnson has resigned as leader of the Conservative party and plans to stay on as prime minister until a new party leader is elected by the autumn.
Really, this "Boris hasn't really resigned" is pure conspiracy theory bollocks.
You don't do nuance do you?
Nor theory of mind. I think that some one else thinks that x, does not reduce to I think that x.
I've just applied the "what is more likely" test.
you have applied it to the wrong question you banana, when the right one is: Cruddas thinks he has legal grounds for a challenge. What grounds are those more likely to be than the "no real resignation" nonsense under discussion.
Javier Blas @JavierBlas EU energy ministers are meeting today in Brussels to try to find an agreement to reduce natural gas demand ahead of winter. The European Commission proposed a voluntary 15% cut across all members - but many countries have rejected the plan | 1/5 #EnergyCrisis
Javier Blas @JavierBlas · 2h On the table also, a **very interesting** Greek proposal to create a new pan-European financial mechanism (with EU and national funding) for national reverse auctions to encourage companies to reduce gas and electricity demand (they get paid to consume less) | 3/5 #EnergyCrisis
I reflected on this overnight. I suspect she might be trolling Fleet Street. Then again a circle is an innocent enough design for jewellery. If it was out the blue I’d say innocent. But it goes along with all sorts of social media innuendo. So perhaps it’s two fingers to the rumour mongers.
Boris Johnson has resigned as leader of the Conservative party and plans to stay on as prime minister until a new party leader is elected by the autumn.
Really, this "Boris hasn't really resigned" is pure conspiracy theory bollocks.
You don't do nuance do you?
Nor theory of mind. I think that some one else thinks that x, does not reduce to I think that x.
I've just applied the "what is more likely" test.
you have applied it to the wrong question you banana, when the right one is: Cruddas thinks he has legal grounds for a challenge. What grounds are those more likely to be than the "no real resignation" nonsense under discussion.
I'm not sure we can be confident that Cruddas thinks he has legal grounds for a challenge.
In case anyone missed it (I posted it at about 2am)
Which raises the question: does she not care? Took me 2 mins to google that
Is she trolling?
On the upside, looks like we’re about to have our first kinkster prime minister (I am discounting the lurid rumours about Pitt the Younger)
Maybe she's been trolled, if she'd been given it as a gift and hadn't looked to see where it was bought from.
No, she knows exactly what it means. Her dress also had bondage motifs - overt, egregious lacing on the sides
She’s a kinkster
"Egregious' lacing ?
‘Glaring, flagrant, shocking’
I find it mildly shocking that she is so open about this. Flirting with lurid Daily Mail headlines?
I suspect she's just going for the whole Boris naughtiness vibe - bollox to your stuff old conventions and expectations. I'll do what I want because it's all about me. That worked for Boris for some considerable time.
I am sure some people will disagree with my analysis that I am of the centre ground, especially after my collapse into Corbynism. But I was more of the centre before that and I try to be after.
I'm personally only really in favour of nationalising the railways.
The centre ground is a movable position dependent on other people's views. I wouldn't fetishize occupying it.
What is more interesting, and consequential in the long-term, is being able to move the centre ground. That's why Thatcher was a more consequential PM than Blair.
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.
And Dominic Raab takes over. Never forget that crucial step.
I reflected on this overnight. I suspect she might be trolling Fleet Street. Then again a circle is an innocent enough design for jewellery. If it was out the blue I’d say innocent. But it goes along with all sorts of social media innuendo. So perhaps it’s two fingers to the rumour mongers.
She wears the ring-o-day necklace all the time, and when she doesn’t she sometimes wears that heavier chain version of the same, which looks substantial enough to be used in ‘play’
I’m 97% certain she’s the real deal. A kinkster. She gives off sub vibes and dom vibes at different times - see the many photos of her in red and black. So: a switch
I reflected on this overnight. I suspect she might be trolling Fleet Street. Then again a circle is an innocent enough design for jewellery. If it was out the blue I’d say innocent. But it goes along with all sorts of social media innuendo. So perhaps it’s two fingers to the rumour mongers.
She wears the ring-o-day necklace all the time, and when she doesn’t she sometimes wears that heavier chain version of the same, which looks substantial enough to be used in ‘play’
I’m 97% certain she’s the real deal. A kinkster. She gives off sub vibes and dom vibes at different times - see the many photos of her in red and black. So: a switch
Definitely. The remaining members of the turnip taliban have been brought to heel and she walks them under collar and leash through Swaffham every Plough Monday
@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
His statement is supported by both the EHRC report and the Forde report
Corbyn said anti-Semitism was exaggerated. The Forde Report says he is wrong. I knew you hadn't actually read it.
Both reports say it was. What do you think used as a tool for factional purposes means.
You either havent read either or are blinded by your prejudices.
You still havent answered what Labour stands for now BTW.
I know its a difficult one as Reeves says one thing and the Shadow transport Minister says the opposite within hours but have a stab at it.
Anyone with just the one barely working eye could see that Corbyn's Labour Party were fundamentally anti- Semitic.
Now I don't believe Corbyn set out to undermine those of the Jewish faith in the UK and most particularly within the Labour Party, he nonetheless did undermine these people. He managed this accident so adeptly because he conflated perceived Israeli Government aggression in the disputed territories with Jewish Labour MPs. He could not tell the difference between Benjamin Netanyahu and Luciana Berger. He is lost in his own ideology.
He has resigned otherwise a leadership election cannot take place.
I guess that means they should cancel the leadership election..?
I agree with others that this is intended to create the stab-in-the-back myth, that really Johnson is still undefeated, for his more fervent supporters.
Given Truss's personal life (which is of course her own business, and good luck to her), the most apt comparison may be not to the Virgin Queen but to Catherine the Great.
Catherine was initially supported by the Spartan-minded Prussians, though quickly incurred their ire by not acting in their interests on her accession. They had no power over her at this point so it didn't matter.
She began as an Elightenment-minded Lutheran but of course had to convert to Orthodoxy to enter the court, and became increasingly conservative and autocratic in her style of rule.
Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine did not do well from her reign - hopefully that last one in particular doesn't come to pass this time round.
He has resigned otherwise a leadership election cannot take place.
Or, the leadership election is not valid.
Once again, which is more likely?
Did Boris and Sir Graham agree that a leadership election would take place, meaning that the former had resigned as party leader de facto even if not using the word?
Or has Sir Graham gone completely off piste, but up until now Boris hasn't challenged the election because reasons?
Given Truss's personal life (which is of course her own business, and good luck to her), the most apt comparison may be not to the Virgin Queen but to Catherine the Great.
Catherine was initially supported by the Spartan-minded Prussians, though quickly incurred their ire by not acting in their interests on her accession. They had no power over her at this point so it didn't matter.
She began as an Elightenment-minded Lutheran but of course had to convert to Orthodoxy to enter the court, and became increasingly conservative and autocratic in her style of rule.
Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine did not do well from her reign - hopefully that last one in particular doesn't come to pass this time round.
He has resigned otherwise a leadership election cannot take place.
Or, the leadership election is not valid.
Once again, which is more likely?
Did Boris and Sir Graham agree that a leadership election would take place, meaning that the former had resigned as party leader de facto even if not using the word?
Or has Sir Graham gone completely off piste, but up until now Boris hasn't challenged the election because reasons?
NEW: YouGov poll of Tory members after debate last night – not great for Sunak...
Who performed best overall? 39% Sunak / 50% Truss
Came across more trustworthy? 37% Sunak / 51% Truss
Likable? 35% Sunak / 54% Truss
In touch with ordinary people? 19% Sunak / 63% Truss
Sunak's problem is not that he is rich.
It's that he is rich at the same time as taking more of ordinary people's money than any government in 70 years for what looks like quite a long period.
Comments
"Commentator" isn't a profession. It's a description of someone who has a mouthpiece and blasts their reckonings through it. Consumers of the media - you and I - need to apply some sensible filter to try to distinguish those worth listening to and those not. Just saying "at least one commentator says" is meaningless - who says it, and why should I place any weight on it?
"Rishi Sunak, who was running the economy... acting like he's just come down from the moon... Liz truss who's voted for 15 tax rises... making promises without telling us how she's going to fund them" Labour's Keir Starmer reacts to #BBCOurNextPM debate
https://www.waterstones.com/book/jews-dont-count/david-baddiel/9780008399511
To argue otherwise is ridiculous
Peter Oborne hardly a Corbynite is spot on
https://twitter.com/OborneTweets/status/1550501486970413059
It doesn't have one today. The position is vacant.
An injustice has been done. A great leader, felled by his MPs against the members wishes. Imperilling the finances and rights of working folk. The strike should continue until Starmer finally steps down.
Unlike almost everybody else, I listened to your speech on the economy, yesterday. You’ve done the first bit. Proven you’re not Corbyn. You’re unthreatening and competent.
Now you need to be exciting.
Take a risk or two.
Some bold policies, please.
I don’t want this Tory shitshow any more. Time to stand up and lead.
So I am today announcing that I will resign as leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party on Friday 7 June so that a successor can be chosen.
I have agreed with the Party Chairman and with the Chairman of the 1922 Committee that the process for electing a new leader should begin in the following week.
I suppose the last 10 years has been distinctively ‘new’..
https://www.liverpoolworld.uk/news/watch-as-labour-leader-keir-starmer-is-confronted-by-angry-voter-in-liverpool-cafe-3781662
Who removed the whip from Tobias Ellwood?
The leader of the party, Alex BoZo De Pfeffel Johnson.
We will shortly be heading to Buckingham Palace to see Her Majesty the Queen, where I will tender my resignation as Prime Minister and I will advise Her Majesty to invite Theresa May to form a new administration.
here's the @ft scoop by @GeorgeWParker & @pmdfoster
https://www.ft.com/content/f41e3350-c870-41a7-b350-80d3a483ef8d
I've therefore decided to step down as leader of the Conservative party when a successor can be elected in the coming months.
Classic
I mean, that would be simplest.
You either havent read either or are blinded by your prejudices.
You still havent answered what Labour stands for now BTW.
I know its a difficult one as Reeves says one thing and the Shadow transport Minister says the opposite within hours but have a stab at it.
How are you, btw ?
Let us know how you get on
For that to work, there is no need to win any legal case (nobody likes lawyers and we've famously had enough of experts). For quite a few credulous nitwits to believe it just requires people like Cruddas spraying round a fog of bullsh1t on behalf of Johnson.
Which raises the question: does she not care? Took me 2 mins to google that
Is she trolling?
On the upside, looks like we’re about to have our first kinkster prime minister (I am discounting the lurid rumours about Pitt the Younger)
He says the government has its "head in the sand" and has been "paralysed" by the leadership contest
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-62273292
Never short of a turgid and lifeless metaphor, Sir Kieth. And the elephant in the room is, as he would say, that he'd have finished a comfortable third.
It was a bullshit judgement that interpreted a written law as meaning the exact opposite of what it said.
I suspect he wants some dispute about the resignation question because that signals weakness.
He'd much rather be seen as having been unfairly forced out by shadowy forces, rather than having lost the confidence of the majority of his MP's and most of his Cabinet.
‘Putin performs both sides of the humiliation drama: from the seething resentment of the put-upon Russian everyman to cosplaying Peter the Great. This allows him to appeal to Russians’ sense of humiliation, which the Kremlin itself inflicts on people, and then compensate for it.’
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1551845049486524416
just to authenticate
I like everything about this book
Matthias T. J. Grimme: Das SM-Handbuch. Charon-Verlag 2002, ISBN 3-931406-01-6 (German)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62092075
Boris Johnson has resigned as leader of the Conservative party and plans to stay on as prime minister until a new party leader is elected by the autumn.
Really, this "Boris hasn't really resigned" is pure conspiracy theory bollocks.
Labour stands for opportunity for its client groups - public sector workers and minorities (as long as they're not successful).
As for competence and decency, where's the evidence that Starmer is either? I keep on asking this, and nobody ever replies. He ran on a Corbynite manifesto in 2019, and again in 2020 to get elected, and has since completely ditched it. Is that kind of dishonesty really the behaviour of a decent man? His Brexit solution was dishonest, incomprehensible and ineffective, and if it were up to him we would have been in the much slower EU vaccine programme and probably still locked down.
Though probably just the one.
Or maybe it was the chief whip, automatically, because Ellwood missed the confidence vote without permission.
She’s a kinkster
Nor theory of mind. I think that some one else thinks that x, does not reduce to I think that x.
https://twitter.com/BeritAnita/status/1510628789843288080
My happiest moments are when I get likes across the political spectrum, as I try my best to operate from the centre ground where I can, this is where my natural politics is, I think. I'd probably be quite happy in the Lib Dems.
In a way it reminds me of the… Elizabethan era, when the crown attempted to turn commerce into property (monopolies) and hand it to The Right People.
The people with political power believe the wealth is there for them to drink from, by right of their position. The ones not at the top of The Party, who have built businesses are quite sure about that
So, your Chinese bank may be motoring along doing its thing, when the local Big Cheese in the party rocks up. And wants a loan for his cousin to build a farm for genetically modified, giant, angry, amphibious halibut. 500 miles from salt water. You can either go against the party or….
Don’t worry, if the loan goes bad, you will be the one hauled in front of a Peoples Court….
Lol. This one is actually a chain. Case closed
Anyway I am off for the day.
12 non league football games between now and Sunday
I'm personally only really in favour of nationalising the railways.
They're going to skip the ethnic minority leader stage and leap straight to the owned and collared sub.
Wonder if she has a barcode tattoo?
I find it mildly shocking that she is so open about this. Flirting with lurid Daily Mail headlines?
Javier Blas
@JavierBlas
EU energy ministers are meeting today in Brussels to try to find an agreement to reduce natural gas demand ahead of winter. The European Commission proposed a voluntary 15% cut across all members - but many countries have rejected the plan | 1/5 #EnergyCrisis
Javier Blas
@JavierBlas
·
2h
On the table also, a **very interesting** Greek proposal to create a new pan-European financial mechanism (with EU and national funding) for national reverse auctions to encourage companies to reduce gas and electricity demand (they get paid to consume less) | 3/5 #EnergyCrisis
https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1551852112291807232
What is it about an acerbic blond right wing female that gets so many gentlemen of a certain age hot under the collar?
What is more interesting, and consequential in the long-term, is being able to move the centre ground. That's why Thatcher was a more consequential PM than Blair.
I’m 97% certain she’s the real deal. A kinkster. She gives off sub vibes and dom vibes at different times - see the many photos of her in red and black. So: a switch
Now I don't believe Corbyn set out to undermine those of the Jewish faith in the UK and most particularly within the Labour Party, he nonetheless did undermine these people. He managed this accident so adeptly because he conflated perceived Israeli Government aggression in the disputed territories with Jewish Labour MPs. He could not tell the difference between Benjamin Netanyahu and Luciana Berger. He is lost in his own ideology.
I agree with others that this is intended to create the stab-in-the-back myth, that really Johnson is still undefeated, for his more fervent supporters.
Who performed best overall?
39% Sunak / 50% Truss
Came across more trustworthy?
37% Sunak / 51% Truss
Likable?
35% Sunak / 54% Truss
In touch with ordinary people?
19% Sunak / 63% Truss
Liz Truss: 50%
Rishi Sunak: 39%
https://t.co/UHictqetge https://t.co/nIOyvrS5RF
Its over, she obliterated him on every issue according to the polled panel
Catherine was initially supported by the Spartan-minded Prussians, though quickly incurred their ire by not acting in their interests on her accession. They had no power over her at this point so it didn't matter.
She began as an Elightenment-minded Lutheran but of course had to convert to Orthodoxy to enter the court, and became increasingly conservative and autocratic in her style of rule.
Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine did not do well from her reign - hopefully that last one in particular doesn't come to pass this time round.
Did Boris and Sir Graham agree that a leadership election would take place, meaning that the former had resigned as party leader de facto even if not using the word?
Or has Sir Graham gone completely off piste, but up until now Boris hasn't challenged the election because reasons?
It's that he is rich at the same time as taking more of ordinary people's money than any government in 70 years for what looks like quite a long period.