What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
This touches on the point I made last night. The candidates for the leadership are campaigning on what are essentially completely new manifestos - and the only ones who get to make the choice are the wildly unrepresentative Tory selectorate.
It's an affront to democracy irrespective of it being possible under our constitution.
Wilson to Callaghan, an affront to democracy....
Thatcher to Major, an affront to democracy....
Blair to Brown, an affront to democracy....
Either democracy is easily affronted here. Or it's the way we do things.
At least Cameron to May (eventually) and May to Johnson (quickly) led to general elections. But there is no reason for our new PM to do so.
There's a reasonable case for our elected representatives selecting a replacement PM. There's no case at all for giving an unrepresentative, tending geriatric, group of a hundred thousand or so randoms that choice.
'The way we do things' is not a justification.
If people really want a vote in leadership elections all they have to do is join a political party.
But clearly most people are happy to wait until the next general election.
Nothing more democratic than charging £25 a pop to have a vote
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
This touches on the point I made last night. The candidates for the leadership are campaigning on what are essentially completely new manifestos - and the only ones who get to make the choice are the wildly unrepresentative Tory selectorate.
It's an affront to democracy irrespective of it being possible under our constitution.
Wilson to Callaghan, an affront to democracy....
Thatcher to Major, an affront to democracy....
Blair to Brown, an affront to democracy....
Either democracy is easily affronted here. Or it's the way we do things.
At least Cameron to May (eventually) and May to Johnson (quickly) led to general elections. But there is no reason for our new PM to do so.
It is not the change of Prime Minister that is an affront to democracy; it is that they are ditching the manifesto on which the party was elected, and that the choice of new Prime Minister and hence new policies is made not by MPs representing their constituents but by party members representing no-one but themselves.
But any incoming PM facing dodgy polling will change tack. Get real....
And the issue with the two contenders is that they are arguing about a change to current implemented taxation policy that was diametrically opposed to what was in the 2019 manifesto. So they are arguing about going BACK to the Manifesto.
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
This touches on the point I made last night. The candidates for the leadership are campaigning on what are essentially completely new manifestos - and the only ones who get to make the choice are the wildly unrepresentative Tory selectorate.
It's an affront to democracy irrespective of it being possible under our constitution.
Wilson to Callaghan, an affront to democracy....
Thatcher to Major, an affront to democracy....
Blair to Brown, an affront to democracy....
Either democracy is easily affronted here. Or it's the way we do things.
At least Cameron to May (eventually) and May to Johnson (quickly) led to general elections. But there is no reason for our new PM to do so.
There's a reasonable case for our elected representatives selecting a replacement PM. There's no case at all for giving an unrepresentative, tending geriatric, group of a hundred thousand or so randoms that choice.
'The way we do things' is not a justification.
Whilst I agree with the others who have said that there is no need for a GE, I do also agree with you that the party membership should have no part in this. It should have been a decision solely for MPs.
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
This touches on the point I made last night. The candidates for the leadership are campaigning on what are essentially completely new manifestos - and the only ones who get to make the choice are the wildly unrepresentative Tory selectorate.
It's an affront to democracy irrespective of it being possible under our constitution.
Wilson to Callaghan, an affront to democracy....
Thatcher to Major, an affront to democracy....
Blair to Brown, an affront to democracy....
Either democracy is easily affronted here. Or it's the way we do things.
At least Cameron to May (eventually) and May to Johnson (quickly) led to general elections. But there is no reason for our new PM to do so.
There's a reasonable case for our elected representatives selecting a replacement PM. There's no case at all for giving an unrepresentative, tending geriatric, group of a hundred thousand or so randoms that choice.
'The way we do things' is not a justification.
If people really want a vote in leadership elections all they have to do is join a political party.
But clearly most people are happy to wait until the next general election.
Nothing more democratic than charging £25 a pop to have a vote
I'm sure if millions joined those fees would come down substantially.
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
This touches on the point I made last night. The candidates for the leadership are campaigning on what are essentially completely new manifestos - and the only ones who get to make the choice are the wildly unrepresentative Tory selectorate.
It's an affront to democracy irrespective of it being possible under our constitution.
Wilson to Callaghan, an affront to democracy....
Thatcher to Major, an affront to democracy....
Blair to Brown, an affront to democracy....
Either democracy is easily affronted here. Or it's the way we do things.
At least Cameron to May (eventually) and May to Johnson (quickly) led to general elections. But there is no reason for our new PM to do so.
There's a reasonable case for our elected representatives selecting a replacement PM. There's no case at all for giving an unrepresentative, tending geriatric, group of a hundred thousand or so randoms that choice.
'The way we do things' is not a justification.
Whilst I agree with the others who have said that there is no need for a GE, I do also agree with you that the party membership should have no part in this. It should have been a decision solely for MPs.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
Wasn't the manifesto essentially "get Brexit done"? As Brexit has been a laughable fiasco to date, isn't the rhetoric around Northern Ireland and the ECHR etc just an extension of getting Brexit done.
I detest Truss, but as we are a Parliamentary democracy she has every right to continue as PM unhindered. We didn't after all vote for President Johnson in 2019.
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
This touches on the point I made last night. The candidates for the leadership are campaigning on what are essentially completely new manifestos - and the only ones who get to make the choice are the wildly unrepresentative Tory selectorate.
It's an affront to democracy irrespective of it being possible under our constitution.
Wilson to Callaghan, an affront to democracy....
Thatcher to Major, an affront to democracy....
Blair to Brown, an affront to democracy....
Either democracy is easily affronted here. Or it's the way we do things.
At least Cameron to May (eventually) and May to Johnson (quickly) led to general elections. But there is no reason for our new PM to do so.
It is not the change of Prime Minister that is an affront to democracy; it is that they are ditching the manifesto on which the party was elected, and that the choice of new Prime Minister and hence new policies is made not by MPs representing their constituents but by party members representing no-one but themselves.
But any incoming PM facing dodgy polling will change tack. Get real....
And the issue with the two contenders is that they are arguing about a change to current implemented taxation policy that was diametrically opposed to what was in the 2019 manifesto. So they are arguing about going BACK to the Manifesto.....
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
This touches on the point I made last night. The candidates for the leadership are campaigning on what are essentially completely new manifestos - and the only ones who get to make the choice are the wildly unrepresentative Tory selectorate.
It's an affront to democracy irrespective of it being possible under our constitution.
Wilson to Callaghan, an affront to democracy....
Thatcher to Major, an affront to democracy....
Blair to Brown, an affront to democracy....
Either democracy is easily affronted here. Or it's the way we do things.
At least Cameron to May (eventually) and May to Johnson (quickly) led to general elections. But there is no reason for our new PM to do so.
There's a reasonable case for our elected representatives selecting a replacement PM. There's no case at all for giving an unrepresentative, tending geriatric, group of a hundred thousand or so randoms that choice.
'The way we do things' is not a justification.
If people really want a vote in leadership elections all they have to do is join a political party.
But clearly most people are happy to wait until the next general election.
So all voters should join all Parties just to ensure that everything any Party does meets the approval of the electorate?
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
Wasn't the manifesto essentially "get Brexit done"? As Brexit has been a laughable fiasco to date, isn't the rhetoric around Northern Ireland and the ECHR etc just an extension of getting Brexit done.
I detest Truss, but as we are a Parliamentary democracy she has every right to continue as PM unhindered. We didn't after all vote for President Johnson in 2019.
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
If it is, I think it will backfire like his other ones.
I think people make decisions at elections looking forward, not backwards. So I don't think admitting that a governing party has screwed up for ten years will have nearly as much impact as people think it will, as long as the public think it's on the right track now and in the future.
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
This touches on the point I made last night. The candidates for the leadership are campaigning on what are essentially completely new manifestos - and the only ones who get to make the choice are the wildly unrepresentative Tory selectorate.
It's an affront to democracy irrespective of it being possible under our constitution.
Wilson to Callaghan, an affront to democracy....
Thatcher to Major, an affront to democracy....
Blair to Brown, an affront to democracy....
Either democracy is easily affronted here. Or it's the way we do things.
At least Cameron to May (eventually) and May to Johnson (quickly) led to general elections. But there is no reason for our new PM to do so.
There's a reasonable case for our elected representatives selecting a replacement PM. There's no case at all for giving an unrepresentative, tending geriatric, group of a hundred thousand or so randoms that choice.
'The way we do things' is not a justification.
If people really want a vote in leadership elections all they have to do is join a political party.
But clearly most people are happy to wait until the next general election.
So all voters should join all Parties just to ensure that everything any Party does meets the approval of the electorate?
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
This touches on the point I made last night. The candidates for the leadership are campaigning on what are essentially completely new manifestos - and the only ones who get to make the choice are the wildly unrepresentative Tory selectorate.
It's an affront to democracy irrespective of it being possible under our constitution.
Wilson to Callaghan, an affront to democracy....
Thatcher to Major, an affront to democracy....
Blair to Brown, an affront to democracy....
Either democracy is easily affronted here. Or it's the way we do things.
At least Cameron to May (eventually) and May to Johnson (quickly) led to general elections. But there is no reason for our new PM to do so.
It is not the change of Prime Minister that is an affront to democracy; it is that they are ditching the manifesto on which the party was elected, and that the choice of new Prime Minister and hence new policies is made not by MPs representing their constituents but by party members representing no-one but themselves.
But any incoming PM facing dodgy polling will change tack. Get real....
And the issue with the two contenders is that they are arguing about a change to current implemented taxation policy that was diametrically opposed to what was in the 2019 manifesto. So they are arguing about going BACK to the Manifesto.....
Grammar schools ?
The manifesto included a commitment to enable parents to choose the schools best suited to their children as well as free schools
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
If it is, I think it will backfire like his other ones.
I think people make decisions at elections looking forward, not backwards. So I don't think admitting that a governing party has screwed up for ten years will have nearly as much impact as people think it will, as long as the public think it's on the right track now and in the future.
If people are satisfied with the government's performance in two years' time, they'll vote for them, and if they aren't they won't. Perhaps 2% will care about philosophical consistency.
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
If it is, I think it will backfire like his other ones.
I think people make decisions at elections looking forward, not backwards. So I don't think admitting that a governing party has screwed up for ten years will have nearly as much impact as people think it will, as long as the public think it's on the right track now and in the future.
The government is lucky, to a limited extent, that the two biggest events are clearly outside their direct control.
It’s not like Gordon Brown who was revealed only to have abolished boom by a major recession, as much as he tried to shift the blame to the Americans. War and pandemic aren’t like that, government has decisions to make but isn’t seen as responsible in the same way.
What war and pandemic have done though, is kept the EU relationship off the front pages. How many hundred Guardian headlines and how many million retweets, would we have had about trade edge cases in the past three years?
Doesn’t mean the finances aren’t screwed though, the next PM has a difficult job to do.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
Morning all, some really interesting debates over the direction of the Conservatives. A talented leader can persuade and convince people of the value of their arguments, even if they may not at first sight have been what was expected.
Attending the hustings in Leeds last week, listening to the candidates and some of the questions, I was struck how much more we, the Conservatives, have to do. At times, in all honesty, I questioned whether I recognised the form of Conservatvism that was being offered and how much I liked it. I think it is because, for me, three principles should form the basis of the Conservative Party's offering and were not as explicit as I like. We must be Pragmatic, Empathetic and Forward Looking.
Conservatism with a small 'c', has always been proudly pragmatic. What works is important, evidence-based solutions should be emphasised, unbending ideology looked at with some sceptism. But that pragmatism must sit alongside empathy, because no political party can ever seek to govern well, if it doesn't seek to understand, engage with and respond appropriately to those it wishes to govern. But understanding is crucial here and that involves hard work to engage with people, recognise that people's lives are complex, and that none of us can control everything around us. Yes, we won't all get what we want from politicians, but if we understand that their hearts are in the right place (alongside their heads); then I am convinced people can buy in to that. In terms of being forward-looking, we need to be a political party that recognises and learns from history, respects it where appropriate, but is positively looking to the future and does not seek to equate past solutions with current or future problems. We must also address structural challenges in the economy and society.
As I noted earlier, in Leeds, there were various times during the evening where I felt these principles were not sufficiently emphasised. On policy, a member question about inter-generational fairness (albeit poorly put) did not elicit a response from the leadership candidate (I cannot remember who it was) that seemed to grasp that this was a real challenge that needs big thinking to address where resultant policies will result in some voters being unhappy. On symbolism, Margaret Thatcher continued to influence proceedings (as Blair or Corbyn do for Labour). There is nothing wrong with acknowledging Thatcher's importance historically and that she did many very good things for the country (all true). Yet neither leadership candidate was far beyond their teens when she was in power! I wanted both candidates to project forward far more and note that past responses may influence current and future policy, but we cannot simply lift the past and deploy it today, particularly when current and future challenges have different profiles.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
Morning all, some really interesting debates over the direction of the Conservatives. A talented leader can persuade and convince people of the value of their arguments, even if they may not at first sight have been what was expected.
Attending the hustings in Leeds last week, listening to the candidates and some of the questions, I was struck how much more we, the Conservatives, have to do. At times, in all honesty, I questioned whether I recognised the form of Conservatvism that was being offered and how much I liked it. I think it is because, for me, three principles should form the basis of the Conservative Party's offering to me and were not as explicit as I like. We must be Pragmatic, Empathetic and Forward Looking.
Conservatism with a small 'c', has always been proudly pragmatic. What works is important, evidence-based solutions should be emphasised, unbending ideology looked at with some sceptism. But that pragmatism must sit alongside empathy, because no political party can ever seek to govern well, if it doesn't seek to understand, engage with and respond appropriately to those it wishes to govern. But understanding is crucial here and that involves hard work to engage with people, recognise that people's lives are complex, and that none of us can control everything around us. Yes, we won't all get what we want from politicians, but if we understand that their hearts are in the right place (alongside their heads); then I am convinced people can buy in to that. In terms of being forward-looking, we need to be a political party that recognises and learns from history, respects it where appropriate, but is positively looking to the future and does not seek to equate past solutions with current or future problems. We must also address structural challenges in the economy and society.
As I noted earlier, in Leeds, there were various times during the evening where I felt these principles were not sufficiently emphasised. On policy, a member question about inter-generational fairness (albeit poorly put) did not elicit a response from the leadership candidate (I cannot remember who it was) that seemed to grasp that this was a real challenge that needs big thinking to address where resultant policies will result in some voters being unhappy. On symbolism, Margaret Thatcher continued to influence proceedings (as Blair or Corbyn do for Labour). There is nothing wrong with acknowledging Thatcher's importance historically and that she did many very good things for the country (all true). Yet neither leadership candidate was far beyond their teens when she was in power! I wanted both candidates to project forward far more and note that past responses may influence current and future policy, but we cannot simply lift the past and deploy it today, particularly when current and future challenges have different profiles.
Just a superb post that sets out my position and my concerns in respect of both candidates more articulately than I have managed myself.
If Liz wants to make a genuine difference that would have a massive impact, let's change the planning system so mobile operators can build masts where they want them.
Mast here has been refused because of "visual impact" and because it "causes cancer". I don't know if these people have ever lived in London before.
Old (ie older than me) posho Cons member discussing the race. He is undecided. All his similar older posho Cons member mates are for Rishi.
Given this one anecdote, gleaned on a lovely Sunday afternoon over a cup of Earl Grey and a homemade fruit flapjack, leads me to say that the 11s about Rishi is too long.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
I would have more frequent elections, but with five years between elections circumstances change, and we also elect our representatives one the basis of their character, judgement and general political philosophy, to be able to adjust their policy in response to events.
They're not robotic delegates bound by a fixed set of instructions.
Sunak's problem is he's belatedly realised the Tories are a deeply unserious party now, and is pitching in. But in that case the party will pick the more authentically unserious candidate.
And to this point it's shocking no politician - I include Labour in this - appears interested in addressing Cost of Living, the biggest crisis facing the country.
Corporation tax cuts aren't going to be keeping anyone warm this winter.
The scale of the food and fossil fuel bills, as well as interest rises do not make for easy solutions.
It may be that Labour is just keeping its powder dry, but I cannot but wonder if they have any powder at all.
Cost of living crisis means people have less money to spend.
Reducing corporate taxes will give corporations more money, which they will use to either invest, pay their workers or distribute to shareholders. All three of these will lead to people having more money to spend, i.e. helping to alleviate the cost of living crisis.
Another red flag for my party, which has been noted by others, is my fear that Boris Johnson will become another past Conservative Party leader who, for a vocal minority, will be the benchmark from which to judge all future decisions and election results. If the party are not careful, this intense focus on a past leader, will take up valuable energy that should be placed on addressing policy challenges today.
Morning all, some really interesting debates over the direction of the Conservatives. A talented leader can persuade and convince people of the value of their arguments, even if they may not at first sight have been what was expected.
Attending the hustings in Leeds last week, listening to the candidates and some of the questions, I was struck how much more we, the Conservatives, have to do. At times, in all honesty, I questioned whether I recognised the form of Conservatvism that was being offered and how much I liked it. I think it is because, for me, three principles should form the basis of the Conservative Party's offering to me and were not as explicit as I like. We must be Pragmatic, Empathetic and Forward Looking.
Conservatism with a small 'c', has always been proudly pragmatic. What works is important, evidence-based solutions should be emphasised, unbending ideology looked at with some sceptism. But that pragmatism must sit alongside empathy, because no political party can ever seek to govern well, if it doesn't seek to understand, engage with and respond appropriately to those it wishes to govern. But understanding is crucial here and that involves hard work to engage with people, recognise that people's lives are complex, and that none of us can control everything around us. Yes, we won't all get what we want from politicians, but if we understand that their hearts are in the right place (alongside their heads); then I am convinced people can buy in to that. In terms of being forward-looking, we need to be a political party that recognises and learns from history, respects it where appropriate, but is positively looking to the future and does not seek to equate past solutions with current or future problems. We must also address structural challenges in the economy and society.
As I noted earlier, in Leeds, there were various times during the evening where I felt these principles were not sufficiently emphasised. On policy, a member question about inter-generational fairness (albeit poorly put) did not elicit a response from the leadership candidate (I cannot remember who it was) that seemed to grasp that this was a real challenge that needs big thinking to address where resultant policies will result in some voters being unhappy. On symbolism, Margaret Thatcher continued to influence proceedings (as Blair or Corbyn do for Labour). There is nothing wrong with acknowledging Thatcher's importance historically and that she did many very good things for the country (all true). Yet neither leadership candidate was far beyond their teens when she was in power! I wanted both candidates to project forward far more and note that past responses may influence current and future policy, but we cannot simply lift the past and deploy it today, particularly when current and future challenges have different profiles.
Just a superb post that sets out my position and my concerns in respect of both candidates more articulately than I have managed myself.
Except that Rishi was born in 1980 so had not even reached his teens when Mrs Thatcher left office in 1990. Liz Truss was born in 1975 so early to mid-teens rather than not far beyond them.
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
This touches on the point I made last night. The candidates for the leadership are campaigning on what are essentially completely new manifestos - and the only ones who get to make the choice are the wildly unrepresentative Tory selectorate.
It's an affront to democracy irrespective of it being possible under our constitution.
Wilson to Callaghan, an affront to democracy....
Thatcher to Major, an affront to democracy....
Blair to Brown, an affront to democracy....
Either democracy is easily affronted here. Or it's the way we do things.
At least Cameron to May (eventually) and May to Johnson (quickly) led to general elections. But there is no reason for our new PM to do so.
It is not the change of Prime Minister that is an affront to democracy; it is that they are ditching the manifesto on which the party was elected, and that the choice of new Prime Minister and hence new policies is made not by MPs representing their constituents but by party members representing no-one but themselves.
But any incoming PM facing dodgy polling will change tack. Get real....
And the issue with the two contenders is that they are arguing about a change to current implemented taxation policy that was diametrically opposed to what was in the 2019 manifesto. So they are arguing about going BACK to the Manifesto.....
Grammar schools ?
The manifesto included a commitment to enable parents to choose the schools best suited to their children as well as free schools
Noooo! Not HY's reintroduction of selective education at age 11 this early in the morning.
Another red flag for my party, which has been noted by others, is my fear that Boris Johnson will become another past Conservative Party leader who, for a vocal minority, will be the benchmark from which to judge all future decisions and election results. If the party are not careful, this intense focus on a past leader, will take up valuable energy that should be placed on addressing policy challenges today.
Great posts James - these ones and the ones previously.
Just about everyone who knows Boris, and is not dependent upon a job from him, has eventually seen through him. His peers at school identified back then the solipsism and laziness that we have seen these past couple of years.
His "good" friends from Oxford likewise Peter Oborne looking at you.
The scales have fallen from their eyes and they have realised the "true" Boris.
Now, many of the rank and file Cons membership haven't got anywhere near Boris and hence are besotted by him. They are none the wiser, call them useful idiots as a shorthand. But with distance, even these types will eventually see his flaws and the flawed character.
I don't expect Boris to become a Thatcher-type presence dominating Cons Party thinking for eras to come.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
I would have more frequent elections, but with five years between elections circumstances change, and we also elect our representatives one the basis of their character, judgement and general political philosophy, to be able to adjust their policy in response to events.
They're not robotic delegates bound by a fixed set of instructions.
Conscious that I'm commenting from the outside, but I think there's nothing wrong in principle with the leadership candidates saying that what they've done so far is either splendid or seemed the best plan at the time, and that events have led to a need for revisions X, Y and Z. But there's something peculiar about actually rubbishing what they did as Cabinet Ministers, and they really should choose a fresh popular mandate if on reflection they feel the previous one was wrong.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
Post Sep 5th this government will have a mandate in letter but not in spirit. The majority was for breaking the Brexit impasse (done) and Boris Johnson (gone) and levelling up (dropped).
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
There is literally no parliamentary system which requires an immediate general election if a new prime minister has the confidence of the current parliament.
Even in the United States, if Biden resigns and Harris takes over, and changes some of Biden's policies, then not only is she not required to call a general election, but she *cannot* call a new election until the fixed 4 year presidential term is completed.
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
This touches on the point I made last night. The candidates for the leadership are campaigning on what are essentially completely new manifestos - and the only ones who get to make the choice are the wildly unrepresentative Tory selectorate.
It's an affront to democracy irrespective of it being possible under our constitution.
Wilson to Callaghan, an affront to democracy....
Thatcher to Major, an affront to democracy....
Blair to Brown, an affront to democracy....
Either democracy is easily affronted here. Or it's the way we do things.
At least Cameron to May (eventually) and May to Johnson (quickly) led to general elections. But there is no reason for our new PM to do so.
There's a reasonable case for our elected representatives selecting a replacement PM. There's no case at all for giving an unrepresentative, tending geriatric, group of a hundred thousand or so randoms that choice.
'The way we do things' is not a justification.
If you want to change "the way we do things" then
a) lead a grass-roots revolt in the Conservative Party to stop the members having a vote; or
b) get a Manifesto commitment to ensure only MPs appoint PMs, and then get that Party elected.
If you don't like things as they are, then agitate for change. Until then, "the way we do things" is absolutely justification.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because even without the precedent of decades of government's ignoring manifestos, that is what the law says. It was decided, in court, on that specific point. There is (sadly) no room for debate on this. Manifestos have no legal standing in our democratic system.
Just through the Port of Dover (in a coach, eurostar wanted £250, coach is £25). No queues, separate EU/non-EU lines, but only about ten people long, back on the coach in less than two minutes. Queues for cars about 20 long, all booths open.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because even without the precedent of decades of government's ignoring manifestos, that is what the law says. It was decided, in court, on that specific point. There is (sadly) no room for debate on this. Manifestos have no legal standing in our democratic system.
No, utterly wrong, what that case says is that there is no legally enforceable mandate, not there is no mandate.
Just as, if I solemnly promise to pay you £100 and then decide not to, there is nothing you can legally do about it. Doesn't alter the fact that I have an obligation to pay you.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because the Wheeler case found that manifestos are meaningless.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
In practice it's quite hard to get important legislation passed in reasonable time without a manifesto commitment. Whoever is the new PM will have a little over two years until the latest possible date for a GE. To introduce bold new policies in that time, they would have to draft legislation for it, win buy-in from their own party, and get it through both the Commons and the Lords. Since the legislation was not a manifesto commitment, back-benchers would be harder to whip, making rebellion likely - even with a large majority, the Tories are rebellious enough to make passing controversial legislation difficult. The Lords would also be under no obligation to accept the legislation without amendment, so we could expect to see ping-pong between the Commons and Lords, each vote being a fresh opportunity for rebellion.
In my understanding, a manifesto is not saying that we will do only the things in our manifesto, but rather that we definitely will do the following things. Nowhere is it said that other legislation can't be attempted. However, in practice it's just a lot harder to pass such legislation without a broad consensus. The real thing to watch out for is things that were in the manifesto and were simply abandoned, because these can reasonably be described as promises un-kept.
Well that’s a weird one, of all the people who might have replaced Vettel I definitely didn’t think it would be Alonso.
Maybe Larry wanted a champion for the sponsors, and as Vettel retires there’s only three of them left on the grid - and AM were not going to be getting their hands on Hamilton or Verstappen any time soon.
Great news for Oscar Piastri though, with the old man making way for the young man who’s a likely future world champion.
Subscribe to OSMaps on your phone. Assuming you can get a signal on Dartmoor of course...
That's a good idea. But I may just buy a new one. You can never have too many OS maps, and if you do your Dad probably wants the duplicates.
Personally I buy the paper maps and use the codes they come with these days to access them on the phone app. That way I don't have to pay the annual subscription (and I get a bonus paper map)...
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because the Wheeler case found that manifestos are meaningless.
Read it, you buffoon. It said the courts cannot oreder their enforcement.
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
If it is, I think it will backfire like his other ones.
I think people make decisions at elections looking forward, not backwards. So I don't think admitting that a governing party has screwed up for ten years will have nearly as much impact as people think it will, as long as the public think it's on the right track now and in the future.
SKS won the Labour leadership by a landslide and the massive deficit in the polls when he took over is now a solid lead.
So I'm not quite recognizing this "all his plans have backfired" scenario.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because the Wheeler case found that manifestos are meaningless.
Read it, you buffoon. It said the courts cannot oreder their enforcement.
Just through the Port of Dover (in a coach, eurostar wanted £250, coach is £25). No queues, separate EU/non-EU lines, but only about ten people long, back on the coach in less than two minutes. Queues for cars about 20 long, all booths open.
Your mileage may vary, though…
Now, in the actual boarding queue, the driver has collected all the passports to show to DFDS. Some British security check? Or just ID? Who knows…
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because the Wheeler case found that manifestos are meaningless.
Read it, you buffoon. It said the courts cannot oreder their enforcement.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because even without the precedent of decades of government's ignoring manifestos, that is what the law says. It was decided, in court, on that specific point. There is (sadly) no room for debate on this. Manifestos have no legal standing in our democratic system.
But also, events happen. Perhaps we should have an election anyway to decide how to approach things post-COVID and with a war in Europe, but I really don't want the current government to govern based on promises made before any of that happened.
It's a poor choice for both sides but Alonso seems to want to stay in F1 and Aston Martin are probably the only team who would have him.
Equally AM need someone to tell them what the car needs to improve it because Lance Stroll doesn't know that and I can't think of anyone left and plausible who could fulfil that job for them.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because the Wheeler case found that manifestos are meaningless.
Read it, you buffoon. It said the courts cannot oreder their enforcement.
Rendering them meaningless.
So the Salisbury-Addison convention is a fiction?
So if I write the words "if you PM me your bank details I will send you £1000 by lunch time" they convey no more to you than "fkgkg hjgjfjr jfg frg hvhbj"?
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because the Wheeler case found that manifestos are meaningless.
Read it, you buffoon. It said the courts cannot oreder their enforcement.
Rendering them meaningless.
Not at all. The voters are still able to give their verdict at the next general election.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because the Wheeler case found that manifestos are meaningless.
Read it, you buffoon. It said the courts cannot oreder their enforcement.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because the Wheeler case found that manifestos are meaningless.
Read it, you buffoon. It said the courts cannot oreder their enforcement.
Rendering them meaningless.
Not at all. The voters are still able to give their verdict at the next general election.
If the a party puts in its manifesto "we will do X" there is no way to force them to do X. Worse, if they put "we won't do X" there's no way to stop them doing X - the next election is too late.
I've put a flat cap on my flat cap, for the occasion.
I will also be rioting against the local government reorganisation of 1974, but as I'm working from home in a somewhat rural location, it's possible no one will really notice.
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
This touches on the point I made last night. The candidates for the leadership are campaigning on what are essentially completely new manifestos - and the only ones who get to make the choice are the wildly unrepresentative Tory selectorate.
It's an affront to democracy irrespective of it being possible under our constitution.
Wilson to Callaghan, an affront to democracy....
Thatcher to Major, an affront to democracy....
Blair to Brown, an affront to democracy....
Either democracy is easily affronted here. Or it's the way we do things.
At least Cameron to May (eventually) and May to Johnson (quickly) led to general elections. But there is no reason for our new PM to do so.
There's a reasonable case for our elected representatives selecting a replacement PM. There's no case at all for giving an unrepresentative, tending geriatric, group of a hundred thousand or so randoms that choice.
'The way we do things' is not a justification.
If you want to change "the way we do things" then
a) lead a grass-roots revolt in the Conservative Party to stop the members having a vote; or
b) get a Manifesto commitment to ensure only MPs appoint PMs, and then get that Party elected.
If you don't like things as they are, then agitate for change. Until then, "the way we do things" is absolutely justification.
Well, saying it is wrong is part of the groundswell which might lead to those things happening. If I mused in 1965 that male homosexuality being a crime felt a bit ho hum to me, I wouldn't feel that Jolly well get your MP to change his mind and alter his party's manifesto at the next election and change the law and until then it is ABSOLUTELY FINE, do you hear me? was a complete response.
@Cyclefree I have sent you a private message. Surprisingly I think I have found some very useful info re accommodation for your son plus it was quite an education for myself.
I've put a flat cap on my flat cap, for the occasion.
I will also be rioting against the local government reorganisation of 1974, but as I'm working from home in a somewhat rural location, it's possible no one will really notice.
Rishi needs to focus in on that. As a libertarian liberal, Truss will be happy with restoring free movement - not a major Brexit issue for her. But for the membership it's vital. Rishi needs to push the 'Truss to cancel Brexit' narrative to the absolute full.
@Cyclefree I have sent you a private message. Surprisingly I think I have found some very useful info re accommodation for your son plus it was quite an education for myself.
If it involves killing her son and burying him on a golf course to save tax, I think that only works in America.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because the Wheeler case found that manifestos are meaningless.
Read it, you buffoon. It said the courts cannot oreder their enforcement.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because the Wheeler case found that manifestos are meaningless.
Read it, you buffoon. It said the courts cannot oreder their enforcement.
Rendering them meaningless.
Not at all. The voters are still able to give their verdict at the next general election.
If the a party puts in its manifesto "we will do X" there is no way to force them to do X. Worse, if they put "we won't do X" there's no way to stop them doing X - the next election is too late.
If you find that the MP you voted for is not trustworthy them you can view for a different person to be your MP at the next election. The next election is really the only remedy that counts in a democracy.
This is one reason why I would have general elections more frequently.
I've put a flat cap on my flat cap, for the occasion.
I will also be rioting against the local government reorganisation of 1974, but as I'm working from home in a somewhat rural location, it's possible no one will really notice.
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
This touches on the point I made last night. The candidates for the leadership are campaigning on what are essentially completely new manifestos - and the only ones who get to make the choice are the wildly unrepresentative Tory selectorate.
It's an affront to democracy irrespective of it being possible under our constitution.
Wilson to Callaghan, an affront to democracy....
Thatcher to Major, an affront to democracy....
Blair to Brown, an affront to democracy....
Either democracy is easily affronted here. Or it's the way we do things.
At least Cameron to May (eventually) and May to Johnson (quickly) led to general elections. But there is no reason for our new PM to do so.
There's a reasonable case for our elected representatives selecting a replacement PM. There's no case at all for giving an unrepresentative, tending geriatric, group of a hundred thousand or so randoms that choice.
'The way we do things' is not a justification.
If you want to change "the way we do things" then
a) lead a grass-roots revolt in the Conservative Party to stop the members having a vote; or
b) get a Manifesto commitment to ensure only MPs appoint PMs, and then get that Party elected.
If you don't like things as they are, then agitate for change. Until then, "the way we do things" is absolutely justification.
Well, saying it is wrong is part of the groundswell which might lead to those things happening. If I mused in 1965 that male homosexuality being a crime felt a bit ho hum to me, I wouldn't feel that Jolly well get your MP to change his mind and alter his party's manifesto at the next election and change the law and until then it is ABSOLUTELY FINE, do you hear me? was a complete response.
Well it would have been, as we are a parliamentary democracy.
In any case party members are just electing the PM, that PM has no power to get anything through Parliament without the backing of the MPs the voters elected at the previous general election
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because the Wheeler case found that manifestos are meaningless.
Read it, you buffoon. It said the courts cannot oreder their enforcement.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because the Wheeler case found that manifestos are meaningless.
Read it, you buffoon. It said the courts cannot oreder their enforcement.
Rendering them meaningless.
Not at all. The voters are still able to give their verdict at the next general election.
If the a party puts in its manifesto "we will do X" there is no way to force them to do X. Worse, if they put "we won't do X" there's no way to stop them doing X - the next election is too late.
If you find that the MP you voted for is not trustworthy them you can view for a different person to be your MP at the next election. The next election is really the only remedy that counts in a democracy.
This is one reason why I would have general elections more frequently.
Which is all well and good, but X might not be reversible.
Rishi needs to focus in on that. As a libertarian liberal, Truss will be happy with restoring free movement - not a major Brexit issue for her. But for the membership it's vital. Rishi needs to push the 'Truss to cancel Brexit' narrative to the absolute full.
It is even more a big issue for the key redwall swing seats Truss has to hold to keep the Tory majority, otherwise the Leave voters there will go back to Labour or to RefUK
BT can get fucked tbh, talking about putting up prices by 14% but only offering a 7% wage rise. They are padding their margins at the expense of the workers and consumers. Scumbags.
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
It has always been a terrible system. In 2003 there was a very insightful letter written to the Times on this very subject:
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
It has always been a terrible system. In 2003 there was a very insightful letter written to the Times on this very subject:
MPs pick the last 2 candidates, members then pick the leader from them.
It works fine and respects the need for the leader to have the support of MPs in Parliament and the voluntary party who do the campaigning and fundraising to get them elected
Good morning from the Costa Blanca. Been in the sea, now for a potter round some beach front shops before a lazy lunch. Mmmmmm
Holiday posts really should come with photos for appropriate level of envy inducement.
This far Cookie's post from Gloucester services beats yours on that basis. Though it's also partly because I'd quite like a beetroot and feta pastie.
Would everyone like me to do a @Leon and post endless holiday snaps? Naah - but I will post some of the more interesting stuff we do.
We're staying in an off the beach apartment in El Campello (east of Alicante) which has cooled down a hot since yesterday. Will be doing the improv aircon trick with frozen products and the fans later.
Been coming here for 20 years - Spanish father -in-law lives in a house up the mountain, so between there and here a lot. But also the joy of the mountain range off the coast in this part of Spain - some amazing places to explore if you have a car (which we do - I genuinely love driving the Fiat Panda we seem to rent every time).
On topic: While I think it's a shoo in that the Lionesses win Team of the Year at Spoty (even if the men win the World Cup they'll make them joint winners), any one of the Team winning actual SPOTY seems highly unlikely. That OGH chose Beth Mead was surprising to me; she isn't the most noticeable or obviously charismatic of the team (I've watched 4 games and I don't think I'd recognise her in the street, but I'd recognise Russo), and that's the issue - a split vote even in the nomination process because there's no one stand out individual.
Anyway, politics. Interesting mapping done showing just how far Tory members and surprisingly even more so Tory MPs are from the voters on so many issues now.
Trying to pull a populist lever at the next election looks set to fail as the Tories have lost touch with reality.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because the Wheeler case found that manifestos are meaningless.
Read it, you buffoon. It said the courts cannot oreder their enforcement.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because the Wheeler case found that manifestos are meaningless.
Read it, you buffoon. It said the courts cannot oreder their enforcement.
Rendering them meaningless.
Not at all. The voters are still able to give their verdict at the next general election.
If the a party puts in its manifesto "we will do X" there is no way to force them to do X. Worse, if they put "we won't do X" there's no way to stop them doing X - the next election is too late.
If you find that the MP you voted for is not trustworthy them you can view for a different person to be your MP at the next election. The next election is really the only remedy that counts in a democracy.
This is one reason why I would have general elections more frequently.
Which is all well and good, but X might not be reversible.
Sure, but that's why protest marches, letter-writing to MPs, petitions and others forms of democratic engagement are important, as they let MPs know what the consequences are likely to be for going against their constituents wishes.
It's also why having a second chamber is a useful check on elected representatives seriously going off the rails. For anything particularly egregious it should be harder to get two different groups of people to go off the rails.
Rishi needs to focus in on that. As a libertarian liberal, Truss will be happy with restoring free movement - not a major Brexit issue for her. But for the membership it's vital. Rishi needs to push the 'Truss to cancel Brexit' narrative to the absolute full.
It is even more a big issue for the key redwall swing states Truss has to hold to keep the Tory majority, otherwise the Leave voters there will go back to Labour or to RefUK
I'd be interested to hear PB's principal Truss backer Bart Robert's take on this. For him having fruit left unpicked was just the market in action. So either Truss is bucking the market or his analysis is in tatters. (I actually tend to agree with Truss, who has realized that 'the market' actually spreads beyond our borders, but it'll be interesting to see how Bart attempts to escape the dilemma.)
Personally I think when in Government the MPs should decide on the leader but that's just me
Yep - a small bunch of members of one political party choosing our PM is an absurdity. Feels wrong, IS wrong.
The party’s members are electing the party leader. The PM is merely whoever commands the support of the House of Commons, from among MPs elected by the People.
It has always been a terrible system. In 2003 there was a very insightful letter written to the Times on this very subject:
MPs pick the last 2 candidates, members then pick the leader from them.
It works fine and respects the need for the leader to have the support of MPs in Parliament and the voluntary party who do the campaigning and fundraising to get them elected
But the very point is that it doesn't respect the need of the leader to have the support of MPs - nobody ever goes through to the membership with a majority of the MPs because the system only requires you to have one third plus 1.
Old (ie older than me) posho Cons member discussing the race. He is undecided. All his similar older posho Cons member mates are for Rishi.
Given this one anecdote, gleaned on a lovely Sunday afternoon over a cup of Earl Grey and a homemade fruit flapjack, leads me to say that the 11s about Rishi is too long.
Soon to be not proper Tories in the eyes of some....
What Labour needs to find is a coherent longer-term message that persuades voters that future cost of living crises are less likely if it is in charge. I think that the Tories dash to full-on Americanisation could well help with that.
‘Failed orthodoxy of the last 10 years’ says Sunak
This touches on the point I made last night. The candidates for the leadership are campaigning on what are essentially completely new manifestos - and the only ones who get to make the choice are the wildly unrepresentative Tory selectorate.
It's an affront to democracy irrespective of it being possible under our constitution.
Wilson to Callaghan, an affront to democracy....
Thatcher to Major, an affront to democracy....
Blair to Brown, an affront to democracy....
Either democracy is easily affronted here. Or it's the way we do things.
At least Cameron to May (eventually) and May to Johnson (quickly) led to general elections. But there is no reason for our new PM to do so.
There's a reasonable case for our elected representatives selecting a replacement PM. There's no case at all for giving an unrepresentative, tending geriatric, group of a hundred thousand or so randoms that choice.
'The way we do things' is not a justification.
If you want to change "the way we do things" then
a) lead a grass-roots revolt in the Conservative Party to stop the members having a vote; or
b) get a Manifesto commitment to ensure only MPs appoint PMs, and then get that Party elected.
If you don't like things as they are, then agitate for change. Until then, "the way we do things" is absolutely justification.
Well, saying it is wrong is part of the groundswell which might lead to those things happening. If I mused in 1965 that male homosexuality being a crime felt a bit ho hum to me, I wouldn't feel that Jolly well get your MP to change his mind and alter his party's manifesto at the next election and change the law and until then it is ABSOLUTELY FINE, do you hear me? was a complete response.
Well it would have been, as we are a parliamentary democracy.
In any case party members are just electing the PM, that PM has no power to get anything through Parliament without the backing of the MPs the voters elected at the previous general election
Yes. The legitimacy of a parliamentary democracy to the extent it has any depends on not just votes but also ideas floating upwards from a grassroots level towards the legislature, which is why it is reductionist and pointless to try to shut down any debate below hoC level with Well that's the law, so there.
Comments
And the issue with the two contenders is that they are arguing about a change to current implemented taxation policy that was diametrically opposed to what was in the 2019 manifesto. So they are arguing about going BACK to the Manifesto.
The outrage is rather too confected.
But as most people aren't bothered they don't.
Which bit ?
I detest Truss, but as we are a Parliamentary democracy she has every right to continue as PM unhindered. We didn't after all vote for President Johnson in 2019.
If Sunak's odds shorten a bit I might go the other way again, but they're pretty hefty.
Wednesday hustings Wales
Thursday debate Sky
Friday debate South-east
https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan/conservative-party-manifesto-2019
I think people make decisions at elections looking forward, not backwards. So I don't think admitting that a governing party has screwed up for ten years will have nearly as much impact as people think it will, as long as the public think it's on the right track now and in the future.
May cost me £200 extra of Truss profit but Rishi at 10/1 feels about right to at the moment and I'd prefer not to carry such a large liability.
I may go back in again if she has a poor debate on Sky News on Thursday and drifts again.
It’s not like Gordon Brown who was revealed only to have abolished boom by a major recession, as much as he tried to shift the blame to the Americans. War and pandemic aren’t like that, government has decisions to make but isn’t seen as responsible in the same way.
What war and pandemic have done though, is kept the EU relationship off the front pages. How many hundred Guardian headlines and how many million retweets, would we have had about trade edge cases in the past three years?
Doesn’t mean the finances aren’t screwed though, the next PM has a difficult job to do.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
Attending the hustings in Leeds last week, listening to the candidates and some of the questions, I was struck how much more we, the Conservatives, have to do. At times, in all honesty, I questioned whether I recognised the form of Conservatvism that was being offered and how much I liked it. I think it is because, for me, three principles should form the basis of the Conservative Party's offering and were not as explicit as I like. We must be Pragmatic, Empathetic and Forward Looking.
Conservatism with a small 'c', has always been proudly pragmatic. What works is important, evidence-based solutions should be emphasised, unbending ideology looked at with some sceptism. But that pragmatism must sit alongside empathy, because no political party can ever seek to govern well, if it doesn't seek to understand, engage with and respond appropriately to those it wishes to govern. But understanding is crucial here and that involves hard work to engage with people, recognise that people's lives are complex, and that none of us can control everything around us. Yes, we won't all get what we want from politicians, but if we understand that their hearts are in the right place (alongside their heads); then I am convinced people can buy in to that. In terms of being forward-looking, we need to be a political party that recognises and learns from history, respects it where appropriate, but is positively looking to the future and does not seek to equate past solutions with current or future problems. We must also address structural challenges in the economy and society.
As I noted earlier, in Leeds, there were various times during the evening where I felt these principles were not sufficiently emphasised. On policy, a member question about inter-generational fairness (albeit poorly put) did not elicit a response from the leadership candidate (I cannot remember who it was) that seemed to grasp that this was a real challenge that needs big thinking to address where resultant policies will result in some voters being unhappy. On symbolism, Margaret Thatcher continued to influence proceedings (as Blair or Corbyn do for Labour). There is nothing wrong with acknowledging Thatcher's importance historically and that she did many very good things for the country (all true). Yet neither leadership candidate was far beyond their teens when she was in power! I wanted both candidates to project forward far more and note that past responses may influence current and future policy, but we cannot simply lift the past and deploy it today, particularly when current and future challenges have different profiles.
Mast here has been refused because of "visual impact" and because it "causes cancer". I don't know if these people have ever lived in London before.
Old (ie older than me) posho Cons member discussing the race. He is undecided. All his similar older posho Cons member mates are for Rishi.
Given this one anecdote, gleaned on a lovely Sunday afternoon over a cup of Earl Grey and a homemade fruit flapjack, leads me to say that the 11s about Rishi is too long.
They're not robotic delegates bound by a fixed set of instructions.
Reducing corporate taxes will give corporations more money, which they will use to either invest, pay their workers or distribute to shareholders. All three of these will lead to people having more money to spend, i.e. helping to alleviate the cost of living crisis.
Another red flag for my party, which has been noted by others, is my fear that Boris Johnson will become another past Conservative Party leader who, for a vocal minority, will be the benchmark from which to judge all future decisions and election results. If the party are not careful, this intense focus on a past leader, will take up valuable energy that should be placed on addressing policy challenges today.
Just about everyone who knows Boris, and is not dependent upon a job from him, has eventually seen through him. His peers at school identified back then the solipsism and laziness that we have seen these past couple of years.
His "good" friends from Oxford likewise Peter Oborne looking at you.
The scales have fallen from their eyes and they have realised the "true" Boris.
Now, many of the rank and file Cons membership haven't got anywhere near Boris and hence are besotted by him. They are none the wiser, call them useful idiots as a shorthand. But with distance, even these types will eventually see his flaws and the flawed character.
I don't expect Boris to become a Thatcher-type presence dominating Cons Party thinking for eras to come.
Except the tweeter of course.
Even in the United States, if Biden resigns and Harris takes over, and changes some of Biden's policies, then not only is she not required to call a general election, but she *cannot* call a new election until the fixed 4 year presidential term is completed.
a) lead a grass-roots revolt in the Conservative Party to stop the members having a vote; or
b) get a Manifesto commitment to ensure only MPs appoint PMs, and then get that Party elected.
If you don't like things as they are, then agitate for change. Until then, "the way we do things" is absolutely justification.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.breaking-fernando-alonso-signs-to-aston-martin-for-2023-on-multi-year.1i8QwJht5v7dBCWFCcrqml.html
Your mileage may vary, though…
Just as, if I solemnly promise to pay you £100 and then decide not to, there is nothing you can legally do about it. Doesn't alter the fact that I have an obligation to pay you.
In my understanding, a manifesto is not saying that we will do only the things in our manifesto, but rather that we definitely will do the following things. Nowhere is it said that other legislation can't be attempted. However, in practice it's just a lot harder to pass such legislation without a broad consensus. The real thing to watch out for is things that were in the manifesto and were simply abandoned, because these can reasonably be described as promises un-kept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire_Day
Maybe Larry wanted a champion for the sponsors, and as Vettel retires there’s only three of them left on the grid - and AM were not going to be getting their hands on Hamilton or Verstappen any time soon.
Great news for Oscar Piastri though, with the old man making way for the young man who’s a likely future world champion.
So I'm not quite recognizing this "all his plans have backfired" scenario.
Equally AM need someone to tell them what the car needs to improve it because Lance Stroll doesn't know that and I can't think of anyone left and plausible who could fulfil that job for them.
So if I write the words "if you PM me your bank details I will send you £1000 by lunch time" they
convey no more to you than "fkgkg hjgjfjr jfg frg hvhbj"?
If the a party puts in its manifesto "we will do X" there is no way to force them to do X. Worse, if they put "we won't do X" there's no way to stop them doing X - the next election is too late.
I will also be rioting against the local government reorganisation of 1974, but as I'm working from home in a somewhat rural location, it's possible no one will really notice.
This far Cookie's post from Gloucester services beats yours on that basis. Though it's also partly because I'd quite like a beetroot and feta pastie.
This is one reason why I would have general elections more frequently.
In any case party members are just electing the PM, that PM has no power to get anything through Parliament without the backing of the MPs the voters elected at the previous general election
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/conservative-leadership-turmoil-tests-grassroots-support-mhggcw3pg8q
But then I would say that - I wrote it!
A seat at Alpine is pretty good.
It works fine and respects the need for the leader to have the support of MPs in Parliament and the voluntary party who do the campaigning and fundraising to get them elected
We're staying in an off the beach apartment in El Campello (east of Alicante) which has cooled down a hot since yesterday. Will be doing the improv aircon trick with frozen products and the fans later.
Been coming here for 20 years - Spanish father -in-law lives in a house up the mountain, so between there and here a lot. But also the joy of the mountain range off the coast in this part of Spain - some amazing places to explore if you have a car (which we do - I genuinely love driving the Fiat Panda we seem to rent every time).
Trying to pull a populist lever at the next election looks set to fail as the Tories have lost touch with reality.
It's also why having a second chamber is a useful check on elected representatives seriously going off the rails. For anything particularly egregious it should be harder to get two different groups of people to go off the rails.