Despite widespread expectations to the contrary, our analysis shows that the rain had the greatest effect on the leave vote, reducing the Brexiteer tally by as many as 4618 votes in one district. We find that if the referendum had taken place on a sunny day, there would have been a small increase in the margin of victory for Vote Leave.
As others have argued, if Truss is to be replaced it has to be via a coronation and for that to happen the vast majority of Tory MPs would need to coalesce around one candidate. It would need to be a candidate of sufficient status and experience to seamlessly and quickly step into the role and also a candidate acceptable to the vast majority of both wings of the party. For me the only two likely figures are the two former PMs currently in parliament; May and Boris. I've backed May at 100/1. I 've just had a small bet on Boris at 13.0.
May would actually match up quite well against Starmer.
But the changing of another leader and another new direction will itself cause the damage.
Asking the voters to accept the 4th cabinet within a year? and trying to say “but this time change in personnel and direction and just about everything actually, is what we really believe in.”
Really? That is an option? 🤭
There is no option other than hope for Trussnomics green shoots of growth just before the election or/and rebuild from a period in opposition.
There is a useful side though to Tory rebels talking up “letters” etc, so it will still go on despite no real thoughts of following it through, in that tge more they hollow her out and keep pressure on, the more u turns they can extract. So I’m asking you to think of these “briefings” and talk of “replacing her” as the complete opposite really - not to replace her this side of election, just weaken her government to extract u turns.
Tory MPs weren’t convinced that the change of direction to Truss was required. She never won a majority of MPs.
It is horrendously embarrassing for them but the angle is: “err… oops. We didn’t realise she was that useless and bonkers. Sorry about that.” And hope the electorate have short memories.
Thanks for supporting my point of view - replacing her brings its own mortal credibility problems to the degree of asking will there be any gain?
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed - but then the country should have their say too. Now, granted, the Tory ideology has more wiggle room for the toffs just telling you who should be in charge, so maybe the membership won't mind, but I just fundamentally disagree that parties shouldn't reflect the issues their members care about - as long as they are also subject to scrutiny by the electorate at large.
Long gone are the days where the monarch can dismiss a PM and install another one. I think, even though we don't have a presidential system, that it makes sense that if a PM is removed for political reasons (and not natural ones like death) that a GE should be obligatory.
+1 - the reason a lot of us made decent money on Brexit was a particular spreadsheet and the fact the polls said remain was a sure fire winner
That spreadsheet was the most incredible piece of information I've ever seen at any election. Seeing result after result where Leave won their areas by better than 'par' and Remain lost some of those, or won theirs by less than 'par', made it much more obvious sooner which way the result was going.
From memory for a while the media would talk up areas Remain had won as a victory for Remain, but the spreadsheet showed that even their victories typically weren't by enough to reach par.
From Farage effectively conceding shortly after 10pm to the realisation after Sunderland that Remain wasn't hitting par was an extraordinary turn around. The stupid money was seeing Remain "wins" without the spreadsheet drove Leave to what - 11-1? 12-1? when THAT spreadsheet showed the winner after a handful of results.
Cabinet minister Penny Mordaunt tells me #TimesRadio benefits SHOULD rise with inflation: “I’ve always supported - whether it’s pensions, whether it’s our welfare system - keeping pace with inflation. It makes sense to do so. That’s what I voted for before.” 1/4
Cabinet minister Penny Mordaunt tells me #TimesRadio benefits SHOULD rise with inflation: “I’ve always supported - whether it’s pensions, whether it’s our welfare system - keeping pace with inflation. It makes sense to do so. That’s what I voted for before.” 1/4
According to reports, in 8 votes on this between 2013 and 2022 she voted 5 times AGAINST raising benefits in line with inflation.
DYOD etc but Tory Ministers do seem to have trouble with the truth, sometimes.
I don't understand how the Tories can legitimately do another leadership selection. Like, constitutionally, sure, but just from the perspective of how people see things... Snip
I think that the situation is so extraordinary, where a new leader has so comprehensively lost the trust of the public so quickly and completely, that taking the unprecedented action of choosing another leader only a month in quite possibly makes more sense than not.
Extraordinary events sometimes require extraordinary responses.
But what problem does it solve? The Tory membership and selection process got us here, why should the public trust that it will provide the solution?
The only thing I think will be seen as legitimate will be a GE - 3 PMs in a year with differing platforms and policy proposals, all from the same party, suggests that the Tories also need a GE to get their manifesto / platform sorted.
I don't understand how the Tories can legitimately do another leadership selection. Like, constitutionally, sure, but just from the perspective of how people see things... Snip
I think that the situation is so extraordinary, where a new leader has so comprehensively lost the trust of the public so quickly and completely, that taking the unprecedented action of choosing another leader only a month in quite possibly makes more sense than not.
Extraordinary events sometimes require extraordinary responses.
I agree. The longer they keep Truss the longer they will be associated with the car crash. A mea culpa is horrendously embarrassing, but better it were done quickly.
If they dump Truss they have a chance at limiting the scale of the defeat. With Truss they are going off the cliff edge. Of that I am absolutely certain.
Cabinet minister Penny Mordaunt tells me #TimesRadio benefits SHOULD rise with inflation: “I’ve always supported - whether it’s pensions, whether it’s our welfare system - keeping pace with inflation. It makes sense to do so. That’s what I voted for before.” 1/4
Cabinet minister Penny Mordaunt tells me #TimesRadio benefits SHOULD rise with inflation: “I’ve always supported - whether it’s pensions, whether it’s our welfare system - keeping pace with inflation. It makes sense to do so. That’s what I voted for before.” 1/4
According to reports, in 8 votes on this between 2013 and 2022 she voted 5 times AGAINST raising benefits in line with inflation.
DYOD etc but Tory Ministers do seem to have trouble with the truth, sometimes.
The current crop just seem to say what they think people want to hear, but they also do not seem to be very bright. It never seems to occur to them that all their past utterances can be played back when needed.
Exc - Whitehall about to embark on a mega advertising blitz to promote government policies - ministers given £930m to spend on advertising space to tout policies in deals until 2025
I don't understand how the Tories can legitimately do another leadership selection. Like, constitutionally, sure, but just from the perspective of how people see things... Snip
I think that the situation is so extraordinary, where a new leader has so comprehensively lost the trust of the public so quickly and completely, that taking the unprecedented action of choosing another leader only a month in quite possibly makes more sense than not.
Extraordinary events sometimes require extraordinary responses.
But what problem does it solve? The Tory membership and selection process got us here, why should the public trust that it will provide the solution?
The only thing I think will be seen as legitimate will be a GE - 3 PMs in a year with differing platforms and policy proposals, all from the same party, suggests that the Tories also need a GE to get their manifesto / platform sorted.
Given the market response to the mini-budget, and Truss's subsequent performance, I'd have thought it would make a fair few Tory members think carefully about who they voted for next time.
Johnson offered the country populist cakeism. That was unsustainable.
To her credit, Truss is moving away from that tone at least - she talks about that there are choices to be made. Although painting the idea that growing the economy is somehow a new priority is utterly ridiculous too.
To her discredit, Truss doesn't seem able to actually make the choices required (borrowing for tax cuts for her mates is not a tough choice) and is actually making things worse with the policies she has settled on, because they are all about political positioning and electoral cycles and less about economics.
Braverman is working on plans to prevent the European Court of Human Rights from overruling the British government on deporting migrants to Rwanda. Ministers are resigned to the prospect of being prevented by legal challenges from implementing this policy before the next general election.
Can the ECHR actually overrule? I thought they could sternly wag their finger… where there is explicit parliamentary approval for something (don’t know if that is the case in this policy) the UK courts would find it difficult to overrule
We can ignore ECHR. It says our ban on prisoners voting is unlawful but we still don't let them vote.
We discussed this some weeks ago. If I recall correctly (might be a stretch) they didn't say the ban was unlawful, just that we hadn't followed the right procedures. In effect the farago served all sides well - the Tories were outraged at the interference, the hand-wringing lefties were delighted that the ECHR 'owned' the Tories. Although the bigger losers were the prisoners, who still can't vote.
It was the sort of pedantry from the ECHR which would make pb.com proud.
They said that it was unlawful for prisoners to be denied the vote by virtue of being in a group of people called "prisoners", but that it would be perfectly lawful for judges to impose the loss of voting rights on convicted criminals as part of their sentencing. Which means it could be in sentencing guidelines for any custodial sentence to be accompanied by a loss of voting rights for the same period. Which would make zero practical difference unless a judge managed to forget to include the loss of voting rights in the sentence. And you'd have to go through some absurd bureaucratic mess to add the loss of voting rights to the sentences of all existing prisoners.
On a narrow point of principle I can understand it, but it's a bit silly in practical purposes. You wonder what might happen if a schoolchild took a case to the ECHR over whole class detentions. Pretty sure they would be unlawful on the same basis.
It was an utterly atrocious ruling and I'm glad that the UK Parliament disregarded it. Voting rights should not be subject to discrimination or judgement, they should be determined upon set standards as to whether you are eligible or not.
Having it be to the discretion of Judges could be open to abuse. One could easily imagine in a country like America that black prisoners would be stripped of their voting rights more than white voters would be.
Equality before the law should be key, if prisoners are to lose the vote (and they're right to do so) it should apply equally, or not at all.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan EXCL: Suella Braverman will today announce plans for a new law to bar anyone who crosses the Channel in small boats from claiming asylum:
Let me count the number of international treaties going back over 100 years that make this illegal....
Now I can't fault the idea but it just doesn't work otherwise we would have tried this a decade ago...
And once again the fix for this alongside a lot of other things has been available on here for years.
large £25,000+ fine for employing an illegal immigrant with director's jointly and personally liable.
Residency for anyone reporting an employer who is found to be employing illegal workers.
I don't think turning every HR department into a mini-Home Office is the right direction to go in.
It won't because most firms are already doing things correctly because it's not difficult to check that someone can legally work in the UK isn't difficult. I would note that things changed yesterday and now may require you actually having a valid passport but most firms really don't have a problem checking if a worker is legal or illegal...
And it's better than the other options because the whole point is to remove the pull that encourages people to come here...
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
All that post is great, especially the last paragraph - Badenoch will be a great LOTO for Labour, as it’s nothing has changed for the better, right wing not moving to centre ground. It could be quite a while before the Tories become interested in being competitive and winning again.
Talking of spreadsheets, somebody has put the work into what troops are in Kherson. Amazing how many have been reduced by 40% and/or had their commander killed.
There are 32 battle groups bottled up in and around Kherson. Stuck there. If Kherson cracks, it is over.
Cabinet minister Penny Mordaunt tells me #TimesRadio benefits SHOULD rise with inflation: “I’ve always supported - whether it’s pensions, whether it’s our welfare system - keeping pace with inflation. It makes sense to do so. That’s what I voted for before.” 1/4
Cabinet minister Penny Mordaunt tells me #TimesRadio benefits SHOULD rise with inflation: “I’ve always supported - whether it’s pensions, whether it’s our welfare system - keeping pace with inflation. It makes sense to do so. That’s what I voted for before.” 1/4
According to reports, in 8 votes on this between 2013 and 2022 she voted 5 times AGAINST raising benefits in line with inflation.
DYOD etc but Tory Ministers do seem to have trouble with the truth, sometimes.
I feel like Penny had a bit of a lucky escape from all this. She made clear during the contest that she wanted to reduce taxes too. She might have listened to what the Treasury/OBR were saying rather than driving the bus off the cliff, but it’s easy to see a situation where now she would have been dealing with a complete loss of confidence.
That sounds like long-standing Conservative defence policy dating back to Mrs Thatcher. Cut, cut and cut again because all we need is Trident and the SAS.
They've just pushed the E-7 program one year to the right following last year's 40% cut in numbers. Obviously, AEW&C not a priority...
Well done them! How does the regime stop that? Lock them up? Shoot them? That would only make the situation worse. How can the protesters take it to the next level to remove the regime? That is the difficulty, unfortunately.
It's far from the only protest - there are dozens of such videos - but it is hard to say how it goes from here.
If the older generation stop tolerating the violence against their children, then that would be one way. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/03/iranian-students-defy-security-forces-as-anti-regime-protests-continue ...Security forces and politicians appeared to believe they have public support for a crackdown, but risk antagonising a fatalistic or cowed older middle-class. Many of the older middle-class, schooled in previous defeats for protesters and ground down by economic sanctions, have been holding back from participating in the recent protests because they see no point in trying to force the government to change its thinking...
Talking of spreadsheets, somebody has put the work into what troops are in Kherson. Amazing how many have been reduced by 40% and/or had their commander killed.
There are 32 battle groups bottled up in and around Kherson. Stuck there. If Kherson cracks, it is over.
When it comes to Russian troops I suspect it's not a question of If Kherson cracks, it's a question of when because supplies just won't be arriving in sufficient quantities.
The underlying economic issue is that we are spending as a country more than we can afford.
We need to improve the terms of trade.
One solution is Singapore on Thames: smaller state, reduced benefit payments, pensions and government employees, scrap business regulations, etc. This is being tried now. The downsizing approach.
The alternative is to improve relationships with our closest trading partner, the EU, and reduce barriers. This may mean joining a customs agreement, single market etc. The expansionist approach.
Johnson offered the country populist cakeism. That was unsustainable.
To her credit, Truss is moving away from that tone at least - she talks about that there are choices to be made. Although painting the idea that growing the economy is somehow a new priority is utterly ridiculous too.
To her discredit, Truss doesn't seem able to actually make the choices required (borrowing for tax cuts for her mates is not a tough choice) and is actually making things worse with the policies she has settled on, because they are all about political positioning and electoral cycles and less about economics.
If she was really in tune with the electoral cycle she’d have kept her powder dry and told everyone she wanted to reduce taxes by the time of the next GE - I.e, I have checked the accounts, I’ve realised that I must prioritise keeping peoples energy bills down because that’s what people are most worried about. I am absolutely committed to reducing the tax burden and I will be working in the next 12 months to identify ways we can do that.
Johnson offered the country populist cakeism. That was unsustainable.
To her credit, Truss is moving away from that tone at least - she talks about that there are choices to be made. Although painting the idea that growing the economy is somehow a new priority is utterly ridiculous too.
To her discredit, Truss doesn't seem able to actually make the choices required (borrowing for tax cuts for her mates is not a tough choice) and is actually making things worse with the policies she has settled on, because they are all about political positioning and electoral cycles and less about economics.
This is also a superb post, PB on fire this morning.
Truss is not the cakeism of Boris - Trussism is very clear and simple messaging for voters and should pull in votes come the election, with Tory media rowing in behind it and trashing Labour.
From highest tax take since the war your taxes back in your family’s housekeeping pot to spend how you wish, you want the idle hooked on state hand outs to find a job, as they are in bed as you go out for your first job of the day to come home tired to news our country our economy is unproductive, you want growth, you want Aspiration Britain, productivity and growth (and growth, did I mention growth?) You want an end to our nations decline, you want a UK punching it’s weight in world again.
it seems to be, Kwarteng clearly criticising not just the previous Labour years but the Tory years since 2010 for not measuring up against this pitch, the same from Truss will confirm it.
We know it already? is it not like Trump, Bolsonaro etc so simple a construct from key dog whistles and flag waving?
And, (you can imagine C4 News asking a pollster) is it the sort of pitch to drive voters off polling grids for the big surprise come Election Day? So you could never really be sure from polling you have it beaten.
I don't understand how the Tories can legitimately do another leadership selection. Like, constitutionally, sure, but just from the perspective of how people see things... Snip
I think that the situation is so extraordinary, where a new leader has so comprehensively lost the trust of the public so quickly and completely, that taking the unprecedented action of choosing another leader only a month in quite possibly makes more sense than not.
Extraordinary events sometimes require extraordinary responses.
But what problem does it solve? The Tory membership and selection process got us here, why should the public trust that it will provide the solution?
The only thing I think will be seen as legitimate will be a GE - 3 PMs in a year with differing platforms and policy proposals, all from the same party, suggests that the Tories also need a GE to get their manifesto / platform sorted.
It solves the very specific problem of Liz Truss, her monumentally awful judgement and her complete lack of basic skills of political leadership.
Of course, it's always possible that they manage to make the situation worse. Things can always get worse. However, there's a chance of them making things better and that chance has to be the rational option compared with continuing a disastrous 29-day leadership which has led to an average polling deficit of ~25pp.
I hold my hand up on this. I spoke up many times to say that I thought Truss was a strong candidate for the leadership, while many others were very confident she'd be an absolute disaster. I hope I haven't been that wrong many other times.
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed - but then the country should have their say too. Now, granted, the Tory ideology has more wiggle room for the toffs just telling you who should be in charge, so maybe the membership won't mind, but I just fundamentally disagree that parties shouldn't reflect the issues their members care about - as long as they are also subject to scrutiny by the electorate at large.
Long gone are the days where the monarch can dismiss a PM and install another one. I think, even though we don't have a presidential system, that it makes sense that if a PM is removed for political reasons (and not natural ones like death) that a GE should be obligatory.
If the current PM lost the confidence of most MPs but another PM could get a majority in Parliament then the monarch could dismiss the current PM still today.
Members also only get the final say on the Tory leadership if Tory MPs are not united behind only one candidate, as they united behind Howard in 2003 or May in 2016.
If Truss went Wallace might be the Michael Howard unity candidate for a coronation to her IDS
Talking of spreadsheets, somebody has put the work into what troops are in Kherson. Amazing how many have been reduced by 40% and/or had their commander killed.
There are 32 battle groups bottled up in and around Kherson. Stuck there. If Kherson cracks, it is over.
When it comes to Russian troops I suspect it's not a question of If Kherson cracks, it's a question of when because supplies just won't be arriving in sufficient quantities.
I has proved a terrible meat grinder for both sides. A siege supported by pin-point HIMARS barrages is likely the best approach, although you have to worry for the terrible privations that will be visited on those Ukrainians still in the city. They will starve before the Russian troops do.
Maybe the Kherson garrison's Russian commander will be a humanitarian and end this before the massive death prevails. History might yet judge him relatively kindly. But he will have to override Putin's orders to fight to the last man.
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed - but then the country should have their say too. Now, granted, the Tory ideology has more wiggle room for the toffs just telling you who should be in charge, so maybe the membership won't mind, but I just fundamentally disagree that parties shouldn't reflect the issues their members care about - as long as they are also subject to scrutiny by the electorate at large.
Long gone are the days where the monarch can dismiss a PM and install another one. I think, even though we don't have a presidential system, that it makes sense that if a PM is removed for political reasons (and not natural ones like death) that a GE should be obligatory.
If the current PM lost the confidence of most MPs but another PM could get a majority in Parliament then the monarch could dismiss the current PM still today.
Members also only get the final say on the Tory leadership if Tory MPs are not united behind only one candidate, as they united behind Howard in 2003 or May in 2016.
If Truss went Wallace might be the Michael Howard unity candidate for a coronation to her IDS
The members have shown themselves to be utter muppets. Keep the decision on the next PM well away from them.
Exc - Whitehall about to embark on a mega advertising blitz to promote government policies - ministers given £930m to spend on advertising space to tout policies in deals until 2025
Seems an odd choice for a government that wants to save money. Also seems borderline corrupt to spend taxpayers' money on selling government policy back to taxpayers. Can't the Tories just tap the champagne with Kwasi circuit if they need money for the Tory party's advertising budget?
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan EXCL: Suella Braverman will today announce plans for a new law to bar anyone who crosses the Channel in small boats from claiming asylum:
Let me count the number of international treaties going back over 100 years that make this illegal....
Now I can't fault the idea but it just doesn't work otherwise we would have tried this a decade ago...
And once again the fix for this alongside a lot of other things has been available on here for years.
large £25,000+ fine for employing an illegal immigrant with director's jointly and personally liable.
Residency for anyone reporting an employer who is found to be employing illegal workers.
I don't think turning every HR department into a mini-Home Office is the right direction to go in.
It won't because most firms are already doing things correctly because it's not difficult to check that someone can legally work in the UK isn't difficult. I would note that things changed yesterday and now may require you actually having a valid passport but most firms really don't have a problem checking if a worker is legal or illegal...
And it's better than the other options because the whole point is to remove the pull that encourages people to come here...
This whole boat discussion has now been running for longer than anyone can remember and nothing real has changed except that the numbers arriving are a bit higher and Albanians have recently started a bit of a business takeover from someone else. What are the odds that this will simply continue?
At the same time huge swathes of the economy are saying they can't get the staff especially in particular skills and also lower wage/skills jobs.
On topic, I like the 'No' bet on 'will Truss face a conf vote?' and I'm on that @ 2.4. You win on 2 opposite scenarios. (i) Things settle down and they decide to stick with her. (ii) Things don't settle down and she is told she has to go to avoid a conf vote that she'll lose.
Johnson offered the country populist cakeism. That was unsustainable.
To her credit, Truss is moving away from that tone at least - she talks about that there are choices to be made. Although painting the idea that growing the economy is somehow a new priority is utterly ridiculous too.
To her discredit, Truss doesn't seem able to actually make the choices required (borrowing for tax cuts for her mates is not a tough choice) and is actually making things worse with the policies she has settled on, because they are all about political positioning and electoral cycles and less about economics.
I'm not sure it's about electoral cycles. She would have to be remarkably lucky to have meaningful growth before the next election.
She could have set out a ten year plan that was to be implemented after she won the next election. Not a ten year plan with just two years before a break where the voters can say "Nope....."
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed - but then the country should have their say too. Now, granted, the Tory ideology has more wiggle room for the toffs just telling you who should be in charge, so maybe the membership won't mind, but I just fundamentally disagree that parties shouldn't reflect the issues their members care about - as long as they are also subject to scrutiny by the electorate at large.
Long gone are the days where the monarch can dismiss a PM and install another one. I think, even though we don't have a presidential system, that it makes sense that if a PM is removed for political reasons (and not natural ones like death) that a GE should be obligatory.
If the current PM lost the confidence of most MPs but another PM could get a majority in Parliament then the monarch could dismiss the current PM still today.
Members also only get the final say on the Tory leadership if Tory MPs are not united behind only one candidate, as they united behind Howard in 2003 or May in 2016.
If Truss went Wallace might be the Michael Howard unity candidate for a coronation to her IDS
The members have shown themselves to be utter muppets. Keep the decision on the next PM well away from them.
As others have argued, if Truss is to be replaced it has to be via a coronation and for that to happen the vast majority of Tory MPs would need to coalesce around one candidate. It would need to be a candidate of sufficient status and experience to seamlessly and quickly step into the role and also a candidate acceptable to the vast majority of both wings of the party. For me the only two likely figures are the two former PMs currently in parliament; May and Boris. I've backed May at 100/1. I 've just had a small bet on Boris at 13.0.
It would actually be hilarious if May returned to No.10 after Johnson had clung on like grim death to ensure he passed her time in office!
As others have argued, if Truss is to be replaced it has to be via a coronation and for that to happen the vast majority of Tory MPs would need to coalesce around one candidate. It would need to be a candidate of sufficient status and experience to seamlessly and quickly step into the role and also a candidate acceptable to the vast majority of both wings of the party. For me the only two likely figures are the two former PMs currently in parliament; May and Boris. I've backed May at 100/1. I 've just had a small bet on Boris at 13.0.
It would actually be hilarious if May returned to No.10 after Johnson had clung on like grim death to ensure he passed her time in office!
The Theresa May redemption arc would be quite hilarious.
All this talk of D-Day makes me wonder if the Party could not reach some deal like with Churchill and Neville Chamberlain where Theresa May becomes Prime Minister but Boris returns as Conservative Party leader so would fight the next election, so those MPs who think Boris can still attract Red Wall votes can be kept onside. (To be clear, I do not advocate this.)
Again, it comes back to what problem the party is trying to solve. To calm the markets, Rishi. To steady the ship, May. To enthuse activists, Boris.
Everyone's being far too dramatic about the situation. The reality is there isn't an election due for more than 2 years.
True. But unfortunately Kwasi's not-budget chucked a grenade into the City and any economic plans. The Bank of England had to intervene to steady the gilts market and bail out pension funds. LizT's government which two weeks ago was opposed to austerity might be forced into massive cuts.
Whilst making very generous contributions to my gas bill. They have got this completely wrong, spending tens of billions on the reasonably well off whilst giving some support to the poor but then taking it away again with cuts. It's a mess.
Absolutely agree re feathering the middle classes with bungs
My smart 'leccy meter seems to have been updated to take the daily Rishi bonus into account. At 11pm yesterday it tells me I had spent only 12p that day.
Bonkers policy. We must stop infantilising the population....
Exc - Whitehall about to embark on a mega advertising blitz to promote government policies - ministers given £930m to spend on advertising space to tout policies in deals until 2025
Seems an odd choice for a government that wants to save money. Also seems borderline corrupt to spend taxpayers' money on selling government policy back to taxpayers. Can't the Tories just tap the champagne with Kwasi circuit if they need money for the Tory party's advertising budget?
Pushing propaganda takes time and money. And this bunch of chancers have a lot of lies they need us to believe...
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed - but then the country should have their say too. Now, granted, the Tory ideology has more wiggle room for the toffs just telling you who should be in charge, so maybe the membership won't mind, but I just fundamentally disagree that parties shouldn't reflect the issues their members care about - as long as they are also subject to scrutiny by the electorate at large.
Long gone are the days where the monarch can dismiss a PM and install another one. I think, even though we don't have a presidential system, that it makes sense that if a PM is removed for political reasons (and not natural ones like death) that a GE should be obligatory.
Given the final choice of who should be PM to 150,000 self-selecting Tory members is not democracy in my book.
When they are in opposition it is a different matter they can choose Coco the Clown for all I care (sorry, forgot, they already did that)
The underlying economic issue is that we are spending as a country more than we can afford.
We need to improve the terms of trade.
One solution is Singapore on Thames: smaller state, reduced benefit payments, pensions and government employees, scrap business regulations, etc. This is being tried now. The downsizing approach.
The alternative is to improve relationships with our closest trading partner, the EU, and reduce barriers. This may mean joining a customs agreement, single market etc. The expansionist approach.
Any othet ideas?
Copy the Americans and Germans. Support, defend and invest in home manufacturers and start-ups. Use creative protectionism if necessary, like they do. Commercialising academic research. Make training cheaper and better. We sort-of know what needs to be done but no-one wants to do it.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan EXCL: Suella Braverman will today announce plans for a new law to bar anyone who crosses the Channel in small boats from claiming asylum:
Let me count the number of international treaties going back over 100 years that make this illegal....
Now I can't fault the idea but it just doesn't work otherwise we would have tried this a decade ago...
And once again the fix for this alongside a lot of other things has been available on here for years.
large £25,000+ fine for employing an illegal immigrant with director's jointly and personally liable.
Residency for anyone reporting an employer who is found to be employing illegal workers.
I don't think turning every HR department into a mini-Home Office is the right direction to go in.
It won't because most firms are already doing things correctly because it's not difficult to check that someone can legally work in the UK isn't difficult. I would note that things changed yesterday and now may require you actually having a valid passport but most firms really don't have a problem checking if a worker is legal or illegal...
And it's better than the other options because the whole point is to remove the pull that encourages people to come here...
This whole boat discussion has now been running for longer than anyone can remember and nothing real has changed except that the numbers arriving are a bit higher and Albanians have recently started a bit of a business takeover from someone else. What are the odds that this will simply continue?
At the same time huge swathes of the economy are saying they can't get the staff especially in particular skills and also lower wage/skills jobs.
Particular skills - pay more and train people up yourself. Lower wages - again pay more.
Although it's worth pointing out - I would be very interested in knowing how many "quietly-retired" / not economically active people aren't economically active because they are awaiting an operation or two...
I suspect that may be a large percentage of those aged 50+...
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed - but then the country should have their say too. Now, granted, the Tory ideology has more wiggle room for the toffs just telling you who should be in charge, so maybe the membership won't mind, but I just fundamentally disagree that parties shouldn't reflect the issues their members care about - as long as they are also subject to scrutiny by the electorate at large.
Long gone are the days where the monarch can dismiss a PM and install another one. I think, even though we don't have a presidential system, that it makes sense that if a PM is removed for political reasons (and not natural ones like death) that a GE should be obligatory.
Given the final choice of who should be PM to 150,000 self-selecting Tory members is not democracy in my book.
When they are in opposition it is a different matter they can choose Coco the Clown for all I care (sorry, forgot, they already did that)
The UK system is you vote for your MP, and their party, not for the Prime Minister. It is entirely within our democratic thinking that the MPs - whom we elected - decide on the leader of their party. When we elect MPs, we do so in the knowledge they are acting on our behalf in certain matters - this is one of them.
I didn't see many of these discussions on here when Gordon Brown took over from Blair as PM, although it may have been I was just not on this site. I suspect this has less to do with constitutional outrage, more that it is a Conservative leader involved.
If we had a system that had a directly elected leader, then yes the arguments around a direct voice may have some relevance. However, even in countries where they do that such as the United States, they don't just call an election to appoint a new President (although you might argue that, by voting for the ticket, you are in effect giving your consent)
Exc - Whitehall about to embark on a mega advertising blitz to promote government policies - ministers given £930m to spend on advertising space to tout policies in deals until 2025
Seems an odd choice for a government that wants to save money. Also seems borderline corrupt to spend taxpayers' money on selling government policy back to taxpayers. Can't the Tories just tap the champagne with Kwasi circuit if they need money for the Tory party's advertising budget?
It's being reported in somewhat bad faith. It's the maximum size of the cross-government call-off contract, not a blank check. Internal departmental budgets are a different matter.
That said, communication does tend to be the most cost-efficient way for governments to effect change.
Johnson offered the country populist cakeism. That was unsustainable.
To her credit, Truss is moving away from that tone at least - she talks about that there are choices to be made. Although painting the idea that growing the economy is somehow a new priority is utterly ridiculous too.
To her discredit, Truss doesn't seem able to actually make the choices required (borrowing for tax cuts for her mates is not a tough choice) and is actually making things worse with the policies she has settled on, because they are all about political positioning and electoral cycles and less about economics.
But Truss is the best possible person to lead the Conservative Party. Conservatives themselves chose her to lead them, following rules of their own devising. Nobody forced them to choose her. As far as we outsiders can tell, they followed their own rules. And she had been in a prominent position for some time - so it is not as though they did not know her.
Conservative moaners should just shut up. There is nobody else in the Conservative Party who would be any better than Truss.
Those of us who are not Conservatives can, of course, see many more promising people to speak up for the country. We have not pledged loyalty to Truss. We can be as critical of her performance as we please. If hitherto Conservatives want to be critical, they should do the decent thing, be consistent - and move over to another party.
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed
[snip!]
The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.
The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.
The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well. They need to choose better.
BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
The underlying economic issue is that we are spending as a country more than we can afford.
We need to improve the terms of trade.
One solution is Singapore on Thames: smaller state, reduced benefit payments, pensions and government employees, scrap business regulations, etc. This is being tried now. The downsizing approach.
The alternative is to improve relationships with our closest trading partner, the EU, and reduce barriers. This may mean joining a customs agreement, single market etc. The expansionist approach.
Any othet ideas?
Copy the Americans and Germans. Support, defend and invest in home manufacturers and start-ups. Use creative protectionism if necessary, like they do. Commercialising academic research. Make training cheaper and better. We sort-of know what needs to be done but no-one wants to do it.
Commercialising academic research is a very big one. Britain does very well in research, but less well at getting the commercial advantage from that research.
Are any PB correspondents attending the Conservative Party conference and willing to report on the mood of the delegates? The views of those who voted for Truss as leader would be particularly interesting.
Seconded. But it seems like most of them have resigned their membership!
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed
[snip!]
The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.
The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.
The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.
BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...
There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed - but then the country should have their say too. Now, granted, the Tory ideology has more wiggle room for the toffs just telling you who should be in charge, so maybe the membership won't mind, but I just fundamentally disagree that parties shouldn't reflect the issues their members care about - as long as they are also subject to scrutiny by the electorate at large.
Long gone are the days where the monarch can dismiss a PM and install another one. I think, even though we don't have a presidential system, that it makes sense that if a PM is removed for political reasons (and not natural ones like death) that a GE should be obligatory.
Given the final choice of who should be PM to 150,000 self-selecting Tory members is not democracy in my book.
When they are in opposition it is a different matter they can choose Coco the Clown for all I care (sorry, forgot, they already did that)
The UK system is you vote for your MP, and their party, not for the Prime Minister. It is entirely within our democratic thinking that the MPs - whom we elected - decide on the leader of their party. When we elect MPs, we do so in the knowledge they are acting on our behalf in certain matters - this is one of them.
I didn't see many of these discussions on here when Gordon Brown took over from Blair as PM, although it may have been I was just not on this site. I suspect this has less to do with constitutional outrage, more that it is a Conservative leader involved.
If we had a system that had a directly elected leader, then yes the arguments around a direct voice may have some relevance. However, even in countries where they do that such as the United States, they don't just call an election to appoint a new President (although you might argue that, by voting for the ticket, you are in effect giving your consent)
And don't forget Gerald Ford was appointed President when Nixon resigned and never won a Presidential election, losing in 1976 to Carter
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan EXCL: Suella Braverman will today announce plans for a new law to bar anyone who crosses the Channel in small boats from claiming asylum:
Let me count the number of international treaties going back over 100 years that make this illegal....
Now I can't fault the idea but it just doesn't work otherwise we would have tried this a decade ago...
And once again the fix for this alongside a lot of other things has been available on here for years.
large £25,000+ fine for employing an illegal immigrant with director's jointly and personally liable.
Residency for anyone reporting an employer who is found to be employing illegal workers.
I don't think turning every HR department into a mini-Home Office is the right direction to go in.
It won't because most firms are already doing things correctly because it's not difficult to check that someone can legally work in the UK isn't difficult. I would note that things changed yesterday and now may require you actually having a valid passport but most firms really don't have a problem checking if a worker is legal or illegal...
And it's better than the other options because the whole point is to remove the pull that encourages people to come here...
This whole boat discussion has now been running for longer than anyone can remember and nothing real has changed except that the numbers arriving are a bit higher and Albanians have recently started a bit of a business takeover from someone else. What are the odds that this will simply continue?
At the same time huge swathes of the economy are saying they can't get the staff especially in particular skills and also lower wage/skills jobs.
Particular skills - pay more and train people up yourself. Lower wages - again pay more.
Although it's worth pointing out - I would be very interested in knowing how many "quietly-retired" / not economically active people aren't economically active because they are awaiting an operation or two...
I suspect that may be a large percentage of those aged 50+...
If Tory NIMBY rebels stop planning laws being relaxed then the Tories deserve to lose the next election and I hope they all lose their seats.
If they are home counties Tory MPs with greenbelt in their constituencies stopping planning laws being relaxed is the only thing stopping their seats and councils going LD.
In any case Starmer has promised 1.5 million new homeowners, let him take the flack for it if he wins the next general election
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed - but then the country should have their say too. Now, granted, the Tory ideology has more wiggle room for the toffs just telling you who should be in charge, so maybe the membership won't mind, but I just fundamentally disagree that parties shouldn't reflect the issues their members care about - as long as they are also subject to scrutiny by the electorate at large.
Long gone are the days where the monarch can dismiss a PM and install another one. I think, even though we don't have a presidential system, that it makes sense that if a PM is removed for political reasons (and not natural ones like death) that a GE should be obligatory.
Given the final choice of who should be PM to 150,000 self-selecting Tory members is not democracy in my book.
When they are in opposition it is a different matter they can choose Coco the Clown for all I care (sorry, forgot, they already did that)
The UK system is you vote for your MP, and their party, not for the Prime Minister. It is entirely within our democratic thinking that the MPs - whom we elected - decide on the leader of their party. When we elect MPs, we do so in the knowledge they are acting on our behalf in certain matters - this is one of them.
I didn't see many of these discussions on here when Gordon Brown took over from Blair as PM, although it may have been I was just not on this site. I suspect this has less to do with constitutional outrage, more that it is a Conservative leader involved.
If we had a system that had a directly elected leader, then yes the arguments around a direct voice may have some relevance. However, even in countries where they do that such as the United States, they don't just call an election to appoint a new President (although you might argue that, by voting for the ticket, you are in effect giving your consent)
Technically true, but not how most people think about their vote. And when you vote, yeah it's for your local candidate but they stand on a national platform, with a manifesto and a leader who shapes the policies and priorities.
A change in leader without a vote, who potentially has different priorities to the platform at the general election (consider the quite significant differences between the leadership candidates this last time) is a problem with our democratic system; personally I think a change in prime minister ought to mean a GE.
Exc - Whitehall about to embark on a mega advertising blitz to promote government policies - ministers given £930m to spend on advertising space to tout policies in deals until 2025
Seems an odd choice for a government that wants to save money. Also seems borderline corrupt to spend taxpayers' money on selling government policy back to taxpayers. Can't the Tories just tap the champagne with Kwasi circuit if they need money for the Tory party's advertising budget?
It's being reported in somewhat bad faith. It's the maximum size of the cross-government call-off contract, not a blank check. Internal departmental budgets are a different matter.
That said, communication does tend to be the most cost-efficient way for governments to effect change.
I don't mind advertising to inform people of changes, if it is cost effective, but if it's being done to sell the benefit of these changes it feels more like party political propaganda and I object to my money being used in that manner. Similar with all these personal ministerial photographers that we seem to be paying for.
Johnson offered the country populist cakeism. That was unsustainable.
To her credit, Truss is moving away from that tone at least - she talks about that there are choices to be made. Although painting the idea that growing the economy is somehow a new priority is utterly ridiculous too.
To her discredit, Truss doesn't seem able to actually make the choices required (borrowing for tax cuts for her mates is not a tough choice) and is actually making things worse with the policies she has settled on, because they are all about political positioning and electoral cycles and less about economics.
But Truss is the best possible person to lead the Conservative Party. Conservatives themselves chose her to lead them, following rules of their own devising. Nobody forced them to choose her. As far as we outsiders can tell, they followed their own rules. And she had been in a prominent position for some time - so it is not as though they did not know her.
Conservative moaners should just shut up. There is nobody else in the Conservative Party who would be any better than Truss.
Those of us who are not Conservatives can, of course, see many more promising people to speak up for the country. We have not pledged loyalty to Truss. We can be as critical of her performance as we please. If hitherto Conservatives want to be critical, they should do the decent thing, be consistent - and move over to another party.
The other way of looking at this is that Liz Truss has proved to be so atrocious at PM she must be dismissed on the grounds of incompetence. Political parties and governments have to adapt to changes in circumstance and remove failed leaders. In my opinion she failed in the first week of doing the job, proving beyond any doubt that she is not up to it. The arrogance over the 'budget' and the five day silence afterwards whilst chaos took over did her in completely. Unlike other parties the tories are in a position to disregard their members and rapidly reinvent themselves in changing circumstances; and this is such a moment.
If Tory NIMBY rebels stop planning laws being relaxed then the Tories deserve to lose the next election and I hope they all lose their seats.
If they are home counties Tory MPs with greenbelt in their constituencies stopping planning laws being relaxed is the only thing stopping their seats and councils going LD.
In any case Starmer has promised 1.5 million new homeowners, let him take the flack for it if he wins the next general election
What a horrific attitude, the Conservatives don't deserve power and I hope you're booted out whenever you're up next in the locals.
The underlying economic issue is that we are spending as a country more than we can afford.
We need to improve the terms of trade.
One solution is Singapore on Thames: smaller state, reduced benefit payments, pensions and government employees, scrap business regulations, etc. This is being tried now. The downsizing approach.
The alternative is to improve relationships with our closest trading partner, the EU, and reduce barriers. This may mean joining a customs agreement, single market etc. The expansionist approach.
Any othet ideas?
Copy the Americans and Germans. Support, defend and invest in home manufacturers and start-ups. Use creative protectionism if necessary, like they do. Commercialising academic research. Make training cheaper and better. We sort-of know what needs to be done but no-one wants to do it.
For me -> we need sustained capital investment. The Tories cut that under Osbornomics and it's never really recovered. That's what drives long-term economic growth.
Plenty of places to spend it. Get that Oxford - Cambridge arc thing going. Big investment in energy, particularly new technologies like tidal, hydrogen etc. Loads of new housing needed, can we go back to letting councils build houses?
Just called my GP to see if I could book an appointment, was given the option of calling back at 12pm to get a same day appointment when the next tranche of those are released, or coming in for a face to face appointment tomorrow instead if I was happy to wait.
Don't often call the GP but its the first time I think I've ever called and been offered an appointment, let alone a next day one, instead of getting told the spiel of calling back at a certain time to get an appointment.
It may not be "within 24 hours" but getting an appointment at a set time for tomorrow afternoon is much better than doing the run around of calling at the same time as everyone else. Hope that becomes more common everywhere.
If Tory NIMBY rebels stop planning laws being relaxed then the Tories deserve to lose the next election and I hope they all lose their seats.
If they are home counties Tory MPs with greenbelt in their constituencies stopping planning laws being relaxed is the only thing stopping their seats and councils going LD.
In any case Starmer has promised 1.5 million new homeowners, let him take the flack for it if he wins the next general election
What a horrific attitude, the Conservatives don't deserve power and I hope you're booted out whenever you're up next in the locals.
Well I can guarantee we would be booted out in favour of the LDs and Residents if we build all over the greenbelt. I know my voters!
The underlying economic issue is that we are spending as a country more than we can afford.
We need to improve the terms of trade.
One solution is Singapore on Thames: smaller state, reduced benefit payments, pensions and government employees, scrap business regulations, etc. This is being tried now. The downsizing approach.
The alternative is to improve relationships with our closest trading partner, the EU, and reduce barriers. This may mean joining a customs agreement, single market etc. The expansionist approach.
Any othet ideas?
Copy the Americans and Germans. Support, defend and invest in home manufacturers and start-ups. Use creative protectionism if necessary, like they do. Commercialising academic research. Make training cheaper and better. We sort-of know what needs to be done but no-one wants to do it.
Commercialising academic research is a very big one. Britain does very well in research, but less well at getting the commercial advantage from that research.
There are some pretty good spin-outs from academic research, most universities have pretty good infrastructure to support that now.
The interesting thing is that they tend to get snapped up quite early, often by large US corporations (and universities often tend to see that as the successful end point). There isn't the infrastucture/funding/mindset to grow them independently/get through to an IPO.
I was involved in one (on the academic side as a partner, never employed by the company) that had the potential to be pretty big in healthcare. It was bought by one of the big players (Dutch in this case - and yes that may well give it away) and absorbed. Nice pay day for the initial investors and the university - and I had a few shares too - but now it's a division in BigCo growing their bottom line, so it doesn't look like a big UK research success.
Let me get this right. In order to avoid being "at the mercy of high spot prices", we are planning to buy loads of gas at current, record-high spot prices, by borrowing money at current, record-high borrowing cost.
These people are behaving like the pigs in 'Animal Farm'. Pigs in troughs. It's gross and even the Hartlipudlians must be noticing. I'd love to see a poll on how people would vote on an EU referendum if it was held now
The other way of looking at this is that Liz Truss has proved to be so atrocious at PM she must be dismissed on the grounds of incompetence. Political parties and governments have to adapt to changes in circumstance and remove failed leaders. In my opinion she failed in the first week of doing the job, proving beyond any doubt that she is not up to it. The arrogance over the 'budget' and the five day silence afterwards whilst chaos took over did her in completely. Unlike other parties the tories are in a position to disregard their members and rapidly reinvent themselves in changing circumstances; and this is such a moment.
Removed on the grounds of diminished responsibility
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed
[snip!]
The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.
The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.
The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.
BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...
There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.
There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
Let me get this right. In order to avoid being "at the mercy of high spot prices", we are planning to buy loads of gas at current, record-high spot prices, by borrowing money at current, record-high borrowing cost.
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed
[snip!]
The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.
The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.
The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.
BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...
There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.
There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
The underlying economic issue is that we are spending as a country more than we can afford.
We need to improve the terms of trade.
One solution is Singapore on Thames: smaller state, reduced benefit payments, pensions and government employees, scrap business regulations, etc. This is being tried now. The downsizing approach.
The alternative is to improve relationships with our closest trading partner, the EU, and reduce barriers. This may mean joining a customs agreement, single market etc. The expansionist approach.
Any othet ideas?
Copy the Americans and Germans. Support, defend and invest in home manufacturers and start-ups. Use creative protectionism if necessary, like they do. Commercialising academic research. Make training cheaper and better. We sort-of know what needs to be done but no-one wants to do it.
Commercialising academic research is a very big one. Britain does very well in research, but less well at getting the commercial advantage from that research.
There are some pretty good spin-outs from academic research, most universities have pretty good infrastructure to support that now.
The interesting thing is that they tend to get snapped up quite early, often by large US corporations (and universities often tend to see that as the successful end point). There isn't the infrastucture/funding/mindset to grow them independently/get through to an IPO.
I was involved in one (on the academic side as a partner, never employed by the company) that had the potential to be pretty big in healthcare. It was bought by one of the big players (Dutch in this case - and yes that may well give it away) and absorbed. Nice pay day for the initial investors and the university - and I had a few shares too - but now it's a division in BigCo growing their bottom line, so it doesn't look like a big UK research success.
The British are good at lots of things but running businesses isn't one of them. Which is why I always think it's slightly odd that the Tories are constantly talking up our rather lacklustre brivate business sector while trash talking areas like universities and the arts where we are genuinely world class.
These people are behaving like the pigs in 'Animal Farm'. Pigs in troughs. It's gross and even the Hartlipudlians must be noticing. I'd love to see a poll on how people would vote on an EU referendum if it was held now
Let me get this right. In order to avoid being "at the mercy of high spot prices", we are planning to buy loads of gas at current, record-high spot prices, by borrowing money at current, record-high borrowing cost.
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed
[snip!]
The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.
The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.
The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.
BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...
There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.
There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice were the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
The MPs put him there because they knew the members wanted him.
Members should not choose the party leader. MPs should. If the Tories don't change this rule they will keep getting loons foisted on them.
These people are behaving like the pigs in 'Animal Farm'. Pigs in troughs. It's gross and even the Hartlipudlians must be noticing. I'd love to see a poll on how people would vote on an EU referendum if it was held now
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed - but then the country should have their say too. Now, granted, the Tory ideology has more wiggle room for the toffs just telling you who should be in charge, so maybe the membership won't mind, but I just fundamentally disagree that parties shouldn't reflect the issues their members care about - as long as they are also subject to scrutiny by the electorate at large.
Long gone are the days where the monarch can dismiss a PM and install another one. I think, even though we don't have a presidential system, that it makes sense that if a PM is removed for political reasons (and not natural ones like death) that a GE should be obligatory.
Given the final choice of who should be PM to 150,000 self-selecting Tory members is not democracy in my book.
When they are in opposition it is a different matter they can choose Coco the Clown for all I care (sorry, forgot, they already did that)
The UK system is you vote for your MP, and their party, not for the Prime Minister. It is entirely within our democratic thinking that the MPs - whom we elected - decide on the leader of their party. When we elect MPs, we do so in the knowledge they are acting on our behalf in certain matters - this is one of them.
I didn't see many of these discussions on here when Gordon Brown took over from Blair as PM, although it may have been I was just not on this site. I suspect this has less to do with constitutional outrage, more that it is a Conservative leader involved.
If we had a system that had a directly elected leader, then yes the arguments around a direct voice may have some relevance. However, even in countries where they do that such as the United States, they don't just call an election to appoint a new President (although you might argue that, by voting for the ticket, you are in effect giving your consent)
And don't forget Gerald Ford was appointed President when Nixon resigned and never won a Presidential election, losing in 1976 to Carter
Indeed, and was never on a ticket given he was appointed post-Agnew.
As funny as it may be, Boris may end up being the only option the Tories have. The Truss government is collapsing in significant part because it has no mandate. So throwing them out on that basis and replacing them with Sunak - who continues those economic policies may be ok.
But if the outrage from the public continues then it may have to be Boris as the only option. Remember he starts from a position of disgrace with his own massive negative ratings - so it won't be easy. And how does he do boosterism when there is no money left following KT and the Fuckup Gang crashing the economy?
Apart from being top kek bringing Johnson back must have appeal to the tories because he's the only one that would have any popular democratic legitimacy and he can easily add 1-5% to the tory polling just by banging on about Brexit for a bit. Jizzy Lizzy doesn't give a shit about or perhaps actively dislikes Brexit.
It would be the absolute epitome of how Fatty has run his life and career up to now, fucking up due to his own greed, laziness and amorality and being forcibly ejected from the room, then sidling back in when a meaningful number of people have forgotten exactly how ghastly he was. The dreadful Z list replacements just aid and accelerate this cycle.
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed - but then the country should have their say too. Now, granted, the Tory ideology has more wiggle room for the toffs just telling you who should be in charge, so maybe the membership won't mind, but I just fundamentally disagree that parties shouldn't reflect the issues their members care about - as long as they are also subject to scrutiny by the electorate at large.
Long gone are the days where the monarch can dismiss a PM and install another one. I think, even though we don't have a presidential system, that it makes sense that if a PM is removed for political reasons (and not natural ones like death) that a GE should be obligatory.
Given the final choice of who should be PM to 150,000 self-selecting Tory members is not democracy in my book.
When they are in opposition it is a different matter they can choose Coco the Clown for all I care (sorry, forgot, they already did that)
The UK system is you vote for your MP, and their party, not for the Prime Minister. It is entirely within our democratic thinking that the MPs - whom we elected - decide on the leader of their party. When we elect MPs, we do so in the knowledge they are acting on our behalf in certain matters - this is one of them.
I didn't see many of these discussions on here when Gordon Brown took over from Blair as PM, although it may have been I was just not on this site. I suspect this has less to do with constitutional outrage, more that it is a Conservative leader involved.
If we had a system that had a directly elected leader, then yes the arguments around a direct voice may have some relevance. However, even in countries where they do that such as the United States, they don't just call an election to appoint a new President (although you might argue that, by voting for the ticket, you are in effect giving your consent)
I think there is a difference between the constitutional set up and logistics of politics, and the political reality of how people view things.
The UK parliamentary system was originally designed not for full suffrage, but for dirty boroughs, and we've nibbled around the edges as time goes by. Yes, we vote for MPs in the technical sense, but in reality people vote for parties, their policy and, often, a PM. So I think the mechanics of politics do need to accept and change based on the political reality of the modern era.
I think it is fine, if a PM is removed, for the party of government to pick a new continuity PM. My issue lies in picking a PM who has a drastically different policy platform picking up the mandate of the previous government and running with it. Truss does not seem to be that interested in the policies espoused by Johnson or in the manifesto she ran on. Obviously events change things, but these are big enough changes that a new mandate should be necessary.
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
It is done Hiroo Onoda, we have left. That's as done as done can be.
What we're dealing with is now post-Brexit. We will deal with post-Brexit for a very long time, just as we had post-war legacy issues to resolve even after the war was over.
If Tory NIMBY rebels stop planning laws being relaxed then the Tories deserve to lose the next election and I hope they all lose their seats.
If they are home counties Tory MPs with greenbelt in their constituencies stopping planning laws being relaxed is the only thing stopping their seats and councils going LD.
In any case Starmer has promised 1.5 million new homeowners, let him take the flack for it if he wins the next general election
He could probably get 1.5m new homeowners by imposing punitive rates of tax on buy-to-let and second home owners. Those taxes could fund incentives for homebuyers to keep house prices from collapsing.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed - but then the country should have their say too. Now, granted, the Tory ideology has more wiggle room for the toffs just telling you who should be in charge, so maybe the membership won't mind, but I just fundamentally disagree that parties shouldn't reflect the issues their members care about - as long as they are also subject to scrutiny by the electorate at large.
Long gone are the days where the monarch can dismiss a PM and install another one. I think, even though we don't have a presidential system, that it makes sense that if a PM is removed for political reasons (and not natural ones like death) that a GE should be obligatory.
Given the final choice of who should be PM to 150,000 self-selecting Tory members is not democracy in my book.
When they are in opposition it is a different matter they can choose Coco the Clown for all I care (sorry, forgot, they already did that)
The UK system is you vote for your MP, and their party, not for the Prime Minister. It is entirely within our democratic thinking that the MPs - whom we elected - decide on the leader of their party. When we elect MPs, we do so in the knowledge they are acting on our behalf in certain matters - this is one of them.
I didn't see many of these discussions on here when Gordon Brown took over from Blair as PM, although it may have been I was just not on this site. I suspect this has less to do with constitutional outrage, more that it is a Conservative leader involved.
If we had a system that had a directly elected leader, then yes the arguments around a direct voice may have some relevance. However, even in countries where they do that such as the United States, they don't just call an election to appoint a new President (although you might argue that, by voting for the ticket, you are in effect giving your consent)
Technically true, but not how most people think about their vote. And when you vote, yeah it's for your local candidate but they stand on a national platform, with a manifesto and a leader who shapes the policies and priorities.
A change in leader without a vote, who potentially has different priorities to the platform at the general election (consider the quite significant differences between the leadership candidates this last time) is a problem with our democratic system; personally I think a change in prime minister ought to mean a GE.
The system does adapt. Back in the past, if a MP was appointed to the Cabinet, they had to stand down and face re-election.
However, you have to have a balance. There is an argument for what you say and it may even be beneficial as it may concentrate minds when it comes to MPs making a knee-jerk reaction to defenestrating the PM. However, as with all these things, you then create an entirely different set of issues (is it better to have a system that encourages MPs to keep a bad PM so they can keep their seats for a bit longer?)
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed
[snip!]
The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.
The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.
The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.
BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...
There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
Like others on here I have no problem with a members vote in opposition - yes you might get an IDS or Corbyn, but when you are out of government it is fair to have a genuine debate with your supporters over the direction of the party and what the party want to offer to the country. If the country agrees with you great, you get to form a government. If they don’t then have a rethink and try again. No real damage is done.
But members shouldn’t get a vote when the party is in government. The emphasis should be more on the suitability of the candidate to lead the party rather than creating new and novel policies to appeal to the party membership, hence destabilising its mandate.
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed
[snip!]
The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.
The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.
The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.
BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...
There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
They were given the choice between a 2nd rate politician and a 3rd rate one. They were never going to pick a proper leader with a choice like that.
There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice were the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
The MPs put him there because they knew the members wanted him.
Which was exactly the wrong reason to put him there, but I think the real reason they put him there was that they knew he would be popular in the country especially with Leavers in Labour areas. And let us face it - they were right. He got Labour Leavers to vote Tory.
Members should not choose the party leader. MPs should. If the Tories don't change this rule they will keep getting loons foisted on them.
So, in an alternate universe, the Tory Selectorate have two candidates for leader presented to them - Margaret Thatcher and Ken Clarke. Which one is the loon?
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed
[snip!]
The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.
The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.
The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.
BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...
There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
Like others on here I have no problem with a members vote in opposition - yes you might get an IDS or Corbyn, but when you are out of government it is fair to have a genuine debate with your supporters over the direction of the party and what the party want to offer to the country. If the country agrees with you great, you get to form a government. If they don’t then have a rethink and try again. No real damage is done.
But members shouldn’t get a vote when the party is in government. The emphasis should be more on the suitability of the candidate to lead the party rather than creating new and novel policies to appeal to the party membership, hence destabilising its mandate.
As I mentioned, I don't remember this debate going on when Gordon Brown was chosen as PM when he took over from Blair. Correct me if I am wrong.
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
It is done Hiroo Onoda, we have left. That's as done as done can be.
What we're dealing with is now post-Brexit. We will deal with post-Brexit for a very long time, just as we had post-war legacy issues to resolve even after the war was over.
You know, I think Brexit was a mistake, but I wouldn't say Brexit (and the effects of Brexit) was quite as bad as WW2 (and its effects). Still, respect for your honesty if you feel that way
@Haggis_UK Remarkable clip. Not only that but “we immediately changed the policy” (10 days later)
That's incredible. She is so engrossed in batting away questions, she can't answer with a simple 'yes' to the ones she can't answer.
She is out of her depth.
Doesn't look well. Conference flu or exhaustion?
The strains of the past 10 days or so would be taking their toll on anyone mentally. You’ve gone from fresh new kid on the block, excited to take the top job, brimming with (sh*t) ideas, to being responsible for a plummet in the opinion polls, economic crisis, questions over whether you will survive, etc.
It would be enough to challenge a strong political operator. And Truss is being shown up as being politically naive and out of her depth. Mentally it must be taking a huge toll.
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
It is done Hiroo Onoda, we have left. That's as done as done can be.
What we're dealing with is now post-Brexit. We will deal with post-Brexit for a very long time, just as we had post-war legacy issues to resolve even after the war was over.
You know, I think Brexit was a mistake, but I wouldn't say Brexit (and the effects of Brexit) was quite as bad as WW2 (and its effects). Still, respect for your honesty if you feel that way
I know you're joking but I do actually think its a good comparison.
Departing a trade organisation we'd be a member of for nearly fifty years and setting our own path was always going to involve traumatic changes at first, I thought that all along.
I don't think Brexit was a mistake though. I don't think WWII was a mistake either, we were right to do it.
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed
[snip!]
The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.
The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.
The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.
BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...
There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
Like others on here I have no problem with a members vote in opposition - yes you might get an IDS or Corbyn, but when you are out of government it is fair to have a genuine debate with your supporters over the direction of the party and what the party want to offer to the country. If the country agrees with you great, you get to form a government. If they don’t then have a rethink and try again. No real damage is done.
But members shouldn’t get a vote when the party is in government. The emphasis should be more on the suitability of the candidate to lead the party rather than creating new and novel policies to appeal to the party membership, hence destabilising its mandate.
As I mentioned, I don't remember this debate going on when Gordon Brown was chosen as PM when he took over from Blair. Correct me if I am wrong.
There was a whole political woohaa about whether he would call a GE, and when he didn't people decided he was frit, and there were calls at the time for a GE.
But in terms of selecting the next PM, it was kind of priced in that if Blair went Brown was next - again, not in any binding constitutional sense - but in the political realm the party was ready for that, and people voting for Labour at that time could have easily understood that. Whereas the Tories, it isn't clear.
Tories are stuck with Truss now, all remaining credibility will disappear if they switch leaders again after a few months. She will lose the GE badly but not as badly as current polls and I think most Tory MPs are resigned to that.
Although Truss/Kwartang have been pegged back back their MPs the cat is now out of the bag - the public has rumbled their game and they don't like it.
What intrigues me is the Tory membership. Johnson's premiership rapidly and predictably collapsed due to all his flaws that were well known before he was elected but the membership knew better. They have done exactly the same with Truss and the way her premiership has gone so far was entirely predicable but again the Tory members knew better.
Unless the party can find a way to bypass the members they are likely to go for another disaster and before HUFYD correctly reminds us that the members chose Cameron I would remind him that the membership has morphed into UKIP-lite since 2016. Thousands of sane Tories have since walked away.
My only problem with this is - is less democracy a good solution to these problems? I would argue that if the Conservative membership want a Truss as leader, that should be allowed
[snip!]
The Tory members are not really the problem. The MPs are the real problem.
The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.
The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well.
BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
No the problem isn't the MPs - the problem is that members shouldn't have a say in a democracy where we elect representatives...
There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
Like others on here I have no problem with a members vote in opposition - yes you might get an IDS or Corbyn, but when you are out of government it is fair to have a genuine debate with your supporters over the direction of the party and what the party want to offer to the country. If the country agrees with you great, you get to form a government. If they don’t then have a rethink and try again. No real damage is done.
But members shouldn’t get a vote when the party is in government. The emphasis should be more on the suitability of the candidate to lead the party rather than creating new and novel policies to appeal to the party membership, hence destabilising its mandate.
As I mentioned, I don't remember this debate going on when Gordon Brown was chosen as PM when he took over from Blair. Correct me if I am wrong.
Brown had a coronation so the debate wasn’t really there to be had.
Truss finds it hard to understand how other people think or feel, says the same thing over and over, is awkward and robotic in movement with learned responses. Does she has a condition?
Comments
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0962629817301300
Despite widespread expectations to the contrary, our analysis shows that the rain had the greatest effect on the leave vote, reducing the Brexiteer tally by as many as 4618 votes in one district. We find that if the referendum had taken place on a sunny day, there would have been a small increase in the margin of victory for Vote Leave.
Long gone are the days where the monarch can dismiss a PM and install another one. I think, even though we don't have a presidential system, that it makes sense that if a PM is removed for political reasons (and not natural ones like death) that a GE should be obligatory.
Fish in a barrel.
DYOD etc but Tory Ministers do seem to have trouble with the truth, sometimes.
The only thing I think will be seen as legitimate will be a GE - 3 PMs in a year with differing platforms and policy proposals, all from the same party, suggests that the Tories also need a GE to get their manifesto / platform sorted.
'[She] is expected to issue a warning to the government over "spending today with no thoughts of tomorrow”.'
If they dump Truss they have a chance at limiting the scale of the defeat. With Truss they are going off the cliff edge. Of that I am absolutely certain.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/oct/03/ministers-given-930m-to-spend-on-advertising-space-to-tout-policies?CMP=share_btn_tw
To her credit, Truss is moving away from that tone at least - she talks about that there are choices to be made. Although painting the idea that growing the economy is somehow a new priority is utterly ridiculous too.
To her discredit, Truss doesn't seem able to actually make the choices required (borrowing for tax cuts for her mates is not a tough choice) and is actually making things worse with the policies she has settled on, because they are all about political positioning and electoral cycles and less about economics.
Having it be to the discretion of Judges could be open to abuse. One could easily imagine in a country like America that black prisoners would be stripped of their voting rights more than white voters would be.
Equality before the law should be key, if prisoners are to lose the vote (and they're right to do so) it should apply equally, or not at all.
And it's better than the other options because the whole point is to remove the pull that encourages people to come here...
There are 32 battle groups bottled up in and around Kherson. Stuck there. If Kherson cracks, it is over.
https://twitter.com/HerrDr8/status/1577125831897645056/photo/1
If the older generation stop tolerating the violence against their children, then that would be one way.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/03/iranian-students-defy-security-forces-as-anti-regime-protests-continue
...Security forces and politicians appeared to believe they have public support for a crackdown, but risk antagonising a fatalistic or cowed older middle-class. Many of the older middle-class, schooled in previous defeats for protesters and ground down by economic sanctions, have been holding back from participating in the recent protests because they see no point in trying to force the government to change its thinking...
We need to improve the terms of trade.
One solution is Singapore on Thames: smaller state, reduced benefit payments, pensions and government employees, scrap business regulations, etc. This is being tried now. The downsizing approach.
The alternative is to improve relationships with our closest trading partner, the EU, and reduce barriers. This may mean joining a customs agreement, single market etc. The expansionist approach.
Any othet ideas?
Notably the longest yield tail since Nov 2018 at 4 bps - a clear indication the DMO had to accept a lot of lowball bids to shift these bonds. https://twitter.com/BruceReuters/status/1577224325715103749/photo/1
It really wasn’t rocket science.
Truss is not the cakeism of Boris - Trussism is very clear and simple messaging for voters and should pull in votes come the election, with Tory media rowing in behind it and trashing Labour.
From highest tax take since the war your taxes back in your family’s housekeeping pot to spend how you wish,
you want the idle hooked on state hand outs to find a job, as they are in bed as you go out for your first job of the day to come home tired to news our country our economy is unproductive,
you want growth, you want Aspiration Britain, productivity and growth (and growth, did I mention growth?)
You want an end to our nations decline, you want a UK punching it’s weight in world again.
it seems to be, Kwarteng clearly criticising not just the previous Labour years but the Tory years since 2010 for not measuring up against this pitch, the same from Truss will confirm it.
We know it already? is it not like Trump, Bolsonaro etc so simple a construct from key dog whistles and flag waving?
And, (you can imagine C4 News asking a pollster) is it the sort of pitch to drive voters off polling grids for the big surprise come Election Day? So you could never really be sure from polling you have it beaten.
Of course, it's always possible that they manage to make the situation worse. Things can always get worse. However, there's a chance of them making things better and that chance has to be the rational option compared with continuing a disastrous 29-day leadership which has led to an average polling deficit of ~25pp.
I hold my hand up on this. I spoke up many times to say that I thought Truss was a strong candidate for the leadership, while many others were very confident she'd be an absolute disaster. I hope I haven't been that wrong many other times.
Members also only get the final say on the Tory leadership if Tory MPs are not united behind only one candidate, as they united behind Howard in 2003 or May in 2016.
If Truss went Wallace might be the Michael Howard unity candidate for a coronation to her IDS
Maybe the Kherson garrison's Russian commander will be a humanitarian and end this before the massive death prevails. History might yet judge him relatively kindly. But he will have to override Putin's orders to fight to the last man.
(Also, I'm not sure that "one of the things that caused market chaos and has increased borrowing costs for gov't and voters, we never really needed to do it" is the strong defence they think it is.) ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1577228767491395584/video/1
The markets don't, why should she...
You can read the text on the Guardian website. They added that Truss was still welcome too as PM, but the tone wasn’t quite the same. https://twitter.com/StyleHelen1/status/1577177857427578880
✔️Reversal of 45p top rate tax.
✔️Bringing forward pub of OBR forecast.
⚠️Guarantee benefits in line with inflation.
⚠️Reinstate cap on bankers bonuses.
⚠️Stop planning laws being relaxed.
This isn’t going to die down for a while, is it?
https://twitter.com/kaitborsay/status/1577230138663895041
At the same time huge swathes of the economy are saying they can't get the staff especially in particular skills and also lower wage/skills jobs.
She could have set out a ten year plan that was to be implemented after she won the next election. Not a ten year plan with just two years before a break where the voters can say "Nope....."
My smart 'leccy meter seems to have been updated to take the daily Rishi bonus into account. At 11pm yesterday it tells me I had spent only 12p that day.
Bonkers policy. We must stop infantilising the population....
Just keep tax low and keep helping make work pay.
When they are in opposition it is a different matter they can choose Coco the Clown for all I care (sorry, forgot, they already did that)
Lower wages - again pay more.
Although it's worth pointing out - I would be very interested in knowing how many "quietly-retired" / not economically active people aren't economically active because they are awaiting an operation or two...
I suspect that may be a large percentage of those aged 50+...
I didn't see many of these discussions on here when Gordon Brown took over from Blair as PM, although it may have been I was just not on this site. I suspect this has less to do with constitutional outrage, more that it is a Conservative leader involved.
If we had a system that had a directly elected leader, then yes the arguments around a direct voice may have some relevance. However, even in countries where they do that such as the United States, they don't just call an election to appoint a new President (although you might argue that, by voting for the ticket, you are in effect giving your consent)
That said, communication does tend to be the most cost-efficient way for governments to effect change.
Conservative moaners should just shut up. There is nobody else in the Conservative Party who would be any better than Truss.
Those of us who are not Conservatives can, of course, see many more promising people to speak up for the country. We have not pledged loyalty to Truss. We can be as critical of her performance as we please. If hitherto Conservatives want to be critical, they should do the decent thing, be consistent - and move over to another party.
The members can only vote for the candidates selected by the MPs. If two brilliant, one-nation Conservatives were put forward to the membership they would have to select one of them. Likewise if two utter pratts are put forward, they have to select one of them too.
The MPs are the root of the problem, especially since they all know each other well and thus know all the candidates well. They need to choose better.
BTW - this comment also applies to Labour because it explains exactly why we got Corbyn.
There should be no members vote because it results in both an inappropriate candidate winning and the candidate creating policies such as tax cuts that weren't in the original manifesto they were elected under...
Of these, 352,011 are due to being long-term sick. That's for 16-64 rather than specifically over-fifties, though. One might assume that the over-fifties would be more likely to need operations or be subject to being long-term ill, however.
In any case Starmer has promised 1.5 million new homeowners, let him take the flack for it if he wins the next general election
A change in leader without a vote, who potentially has different priorities to the platform at the general election (consider the quite significant differences between the leadership candidates this last time) is a problem with our democratic system; personally I think a change in prime minister ought to mean a GE.
Plenty of places to spend it. Get that Oxford - Cambridge arc thing going. Big investment in energy, particularly new technologies like tidal, hydrogen etc. Loads of new housing needed, can we go back to letting councils build houses?
Don't often call the GP but its the first time I think I've ever called and been offered an appointment, let alone a next day one, instead of getting told the spiel of calling back at a certain time to get an appointment.
It may not be "within 24 hours" but getting an appointment at a set time for tomorrow afternoon is much better than doing the run around of calling at the same time as everyone else. Hope that becomes more common everywhere.
The interesting thing is that they tend to get snapped up quite early, often by large US corporations (and universities often tend to see that as the successful end point). There isn't the infrastucture/funding/mindset to grow them independently/get through to an IPO.
I was involved in one (on the academic side as a partner, never employed by the company) that had the potential to be pretty big in healthcare. It was bought by one of the big players (Dutch in this case - and yes that may well give it away) and absorbed. Nice pay day for the initial investors and the university - and I had a few shares too - but now it's a division in BigCo growing their bottom line, so it doesn't look like a big UK research success.
Please, Tory MPs, remove these people from office. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1577237708627640322/video/1
There is a lot wrong with UK democracy, but you cannot blame the Tory selectorate for choosing inadequate leaders when given a choice of inadequates. Having said that, Boris and Hunt was a clearer choice for the membership, but Boris should never have been one of the candidates. The MPs put him there.
Things not looking good at the top of government if she can't answer this simple question.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1577226553154576385/video/1
@Haggis_UK Remarkable clip. Not only that but “we immediately changed the policy” (10 days later)
Truss is talking about looking into long term energy security, which is entirely appropriate.
Members should not choose the party leader. MPs should. If the Tories don't change this rule they will keep getting loons foisted on them.
"I know how to change the structure of our Party, to return powers back to members and I will help with this"
Bless
The UK parliamentary system was originally designed not for full suffrage, but for dirty boroughs, and we've nibbled around the edges as time goes by. Yes, we vote for MPs in the technical sense, but in reality people vote for parties, their policy and, often, a PM. So I think the mechanics of politics do need to accept and change based on the political reality of the modern era.
I think it is fine, if a PM is removed, for the party of government to pick a new continuity PM. My issue lies in picking a PM who has a drastically different policy platform picking up the mandate of the previous government and running with it. Truss does not seem to be that interested in the policies espoused by Johnson or in the manifesto she ran on. Obviously events change things, but these are big enough changes that a new mandate should be necessary.
She is out of her depth.
What we're dealing with is now post-Brexit. We will deal with post-Brexit for a very long time, just as we had post-war legacy issues to resolve even after the war was over.
He won't of course.
However, you have to have a balance. There is an argument for what you say and it may even be beneficial as it may concentrate minds when it comes to MPs making a knee-jerk reaction to defenestrating the PM. However, as with all these things, you then create an entirely different set of issues (is it better to have a system that encourages MPs to keep a bad PM so they can keep their seats for a bit longer?)
But members shouldn’t get a vote when the party is in government. The emphasis should be more on the suitability of the candidate to lead the party rather than creating new and novel policies to appeal to the party membership, hence destabilising its mandate.
It would be enough to challenge a strong political operator. And Truss is being shown up as being politically naive and out of her depth. Mentally it must be taking a huge toll.
Departing a trade organisation we'd be a member of for nearly fifty years and setting our own path was always going to involve traumatic changes at first, I thought that all along.
I don't think Brexit was a mistake though. I don't think WWII was a mistake either, we were right to do it.
But in terms of selecting the next PM, it was kind of priced in that if Blair went Brown was next - again, not in any binding constitutional sense - but in the political realm the party was ready for that, and people voting for Labour at that time could have easily understood that. Whereas the Tories, it isn't clear.