Howdy, Stranger!

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

No. Prime Minister. – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 20 in General
imageNo. Prime Minister. – politicalbetting.com

Britain has largely been ungoverned – and certainly not governed with even a basic level of competence – for the best part of a year now.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,876
    First
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,753
    edited October 15
    We actually haven't been well governed for a generation, not just a year. But as long as the economy kept growing on a debt-fuelled binge, a mediocre civil service and political class could paper over the worst of the cracks. But the financial markets aren't obliging any more. I'm amazed that their patience has lasted so long.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    edited October 15
    Fine article - though I think "exactly" in the last paragraph is wrong.
    Other government will discover their own particular bits of ruin in time, no doubt.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,467
    edited October 15
    Not having a prime minister would be OK except in some weird emergency situations.

    Where the new person went wrong was when she tried to do things. If she stops doing that the country will be fine.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    In Russia, rumours of Gerasimov's political demise seem greatly exaggerated.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1581114404544086018
    When Russian military correspondents were stomping for the regime, I bet they never imagined it would turn on them. Head of RT Margarita Simonyan was swearing up and down that "according to her sources" this wasn't happening. Apparently, it is. ⤵️

    Let's see how it develops, but taken together with Putin's apparent rowing back on his bellicose rhetoric yesterday, the plates might be shifting again.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    Times article reveals Kwarteng's grasp of metaphor is as sketchy as his economics .

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1581026156983160832
    Kwasi Kwarteng thinks Liz Truss has only brought herself a few weeks by sacking him and pledging to raise corporation tax

    He believes the ‘wagons are circling’ on the end of her Premiership
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    Sub optimal.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/status/1580729957550272513
    Moderators closed tonight's Wisconsin Senate debate by asking each candidate to say something they find admirable about the other.

    Lt. Gov Mandela Barnes (D) said Sen. Ron Johnson (R) is a "family man."

    Johnson said Barnes is "against America."

    The audience booed Johnson.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453

    Not having a prime minister would be OK except in some weird emergency situations.

    Where the new person went wrong was when she tried to do things. If she stops doing that the country will be fine.

    Masterful inaction, you think?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    rcs1000 said:

    Not having a prime minister would be OK except in some weird emergency situations.

    Where the new person went wrong was when she tried to do things. If she stops doing that the country will be fine.

    Masterful inaction, you think?
    Are we sure we're not in a 'weird emergency situation' ?
  • Not having a prime minister would be OK except in some weird emergency situations.

    Where the new person went wrong was when she tried to do things. If she stops doing that the country will be fine.

    I disagree with your first point; throughout human history we've recognised that most groups of people (from empires to orchestras to cricket teams) need one person to lead them -- a "controlling mind", if you will -- and the Government of the UK in 2022 is no exception.

    But I agree with your second point. I remember my "O"-level history teacher (or one of them) telling us the biggest success of the 1923 Labour Government was that it "did nothing" (truth to tell, it would have struggled to, having only 191 MPs and so relying on Asquith's Liberals) -- a view confirmed by Wiki ("The main achievement of the Government was that it showed itself to be 'fit to govern'. Although this might not have meant much in terms of concrete policy-making, it did at least not alarm voters...").

    I'd suggest an incoming new Tory leader in January 2023 could do far worse than to copy their predecessor from exactly a century ago.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,045
    How many letters to Graham Brady would be non-recoverable for Liz Truss's leadership?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,927
    edited October 15
    There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.

    But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:

    1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.

    2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.

    He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.

    Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.
  • pingping Posts: 3,201
    edited October 15
    Just listening again to the Truss statement & Q&A’s yesterday.

    Hopeless. Embarrassing.

    Doesn’t even attempt to answer the legitimate questions.

    She has contempt for the British people, from whom she has no mandate.

    Who the fuck foisted this woman on the country?

    Aaron Bell and the like, you’re fucking fools.

    Come on @Tissue_Price explain yourself.
  • pingping Posts: 3,201
    edited October 15
    Mortgage costs rise by an additional £1200 per year thanks to this government;

    https://www.ft.com/content/ac5e987b-1931-478d-8f1a-f4e0751c7760

    Of course, the main cost is on government borrowing.

    Austerity awaits.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    MikeL said:

    There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.

    But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:

    1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.

    2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.

    He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.

    Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.

    Davey's win came after Swinson had a shot at a GE though, Corbyn was only ousted after a poor GE.
    Truss has had one poor budget and she's suffered a heavy price for it losing her right hand man and bringing in someone who is from the other wing.
    I watched the presser, all I can say is she's not as gifted at making up bullshit and lieing as Boris was.
    Let's see what Hunt comes up with for Halloween as outside the fiscal the rest of her Premiership (Dealing with the Queens death and Ukraine mainly) has been spot on.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,882
    Pulpstar said:

    MikeL said:

    There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.

    But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:

    1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.

    2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.

    He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.

    Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.

    Davey's win came after Swinson had a shot at a GE though, Corbyn was only ousted after a poor GE.
    Truss has had one poor budget and she's suffered a heavy price for it losing her right hand man and bringing in someone who is from the other wing.
    I watched the presser, all I can say is she's not as gifted at making up bullshit and lieing as Boris was.
    Let's see what Hunt comes up with for Halloween as outside the fiscal the rest of her Premiership (Dealing with the Queens death and Ukraine mainly) has been spot on.
    I agree the period after the Queen's death was spot on, in that apart from her Speech to the Nation, which was mercifully short and not followed by questions, we saw virtually nothing of her and heard virtually nothing of her.

    Hopefully we'll go back to that soon.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,882

    Good morning, everyone.

    As your new Chancellor, I shall endeavour to-

    Bugger. Just been fired.

    "I'm not going anywhere. Bye then."
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,392
    Nigelb said:

    Times article reveals Kwarteng's grasp of metaphor is as sketchy as his economics .

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1581026156983160832
    Kwasi Kwarteng thinks Liz Truss has only brought herself a few weeks by sacking him and pledging to raise corporation tax

    He believes the ‘wagons are circling’ on the end of her Premiership

    Isn’t that right? It refers to the process of forming the last line of defence around which the Native Americans would then circle themselves
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,045

    I am not revelling in the idea of a Labour government with a stonking majority. But we need a general election immediately. The country needs a general election.

    What is more, I would argue that the Conservative Party needs a general election. I cannot see a way back for them in power, as the bad news will just keep rolling in. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party.

    But the bigger problem for the Conservative Party is that too many people at the top will not - indeed, do not at the moment - see the reasons they are in the mire. Too many will not want to change.

    I still think a Lab/LD coalition is more likely than a Lab majority.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042

    Nigelb said:

    Times article reveals Kwarteng's grasp of metaphor is as sketchy as his economics .

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1581026156983160832
    Kwasi Kwarteng thinks Liz Truss has only brought herself a few weeks by sacking him and pledging to raise corporation tax

    He believes the ‘wagons are circling’ on the end of her Premiership

    Isn’t that right? It refers to the process of forming the last line of defence around which the Native Americans would then circle themselves
    It requires multiple wagons though.

    Liz Truss has just one - and even that is at "the three wheels on my wagon" stage.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    Andy_JS said:

    How many letters to Graham Brady would be non-recoverable for Liz Truss's leadership?

    A number less than has already been delivered?
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,882
    Andy_JS said:

    I am not revelling in the idea of a Labour government with a stonking majority. But we need a general election immediately. The country needs a general election.

    What is more, I would argue that the Conservative Party needs a general election. I cannot see a way back for them in power, as the bad news will just keep rolling in. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party.

    But the bigger problem for the Conservative Party is that too many people at the top will not - indeed, do not at the moment - see the reasons they are in the mire. Too many will not want to change.

    I still think a Lab/LD coalition is more likely than a Lab majority.
    Of course you do
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,882

    I am not revelling in the idea of a Labour government with a stonking majority. But we need a general election immediately. The country needs a general election.

    What is more, I would argue that the Conservative Party needs a general election. I cannot see a way back for them in power, as the bad news will just keep rolling in. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party.

    But the bigger problem for the Conservative Party is that too many people at the top will not - indeed, do not at the moment - see the reasons they are in the mire. Too many will not want to change.

    Well said.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,882
    edited October 15
    Robert Peston said last night that there was an easy mechanism for tory MPs to remove Liz Truss any time they want to.

    He didn't elaborate but short of assassination, to what was he referring? Pesto must know the leadership rules.

    He also mentioned only two possible replacements. One is Ben Wallace (yuck). The other is Rishi Sunak who has the benefit of being proven totally right about what Liz Truss would mean for the markets and economy. I think Rishi would steady the ship sufficiently to limit tory losses to around 150-200 MPs after the GE, although closer to the lower end imho.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808

    Nigelb said:

    Times article reveals Kwarteng's grasp of metaphor is as sketchy as his economics .

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1581026156983160832
    Kwasi Kwarteng thinks Liz Truss has only brought herself a few weeks by sacking him and pledging to raise corporation tax

    He believes the ‘wagons are circling’ on the end of her Premiership

    Isn’t that right? It refers to the process of forming the last line of defence around which the Native Americans would then circle themselves
    He surely meant to say that the vultures are circling?
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,402
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Times article reveals Kwarteng's grasp of metaphor is as sketchy as his economics .

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1581026156983160832
    Kwasi Kwarteng thinks Liz Truss has only brought herself a few weeks by sacking him and pledging to raise corporation tax

    He believes the ‘wagons are circling’ on the end of her Premiership

    Isn’t that right? It refers to the process of forming the last line of defence around which the Native Americans would then circle themselves
    He surely meant to say that the vultures are circling?
    I guess he could have meant the last defence before the inevitable but either way all pretty meaningless. She is no more up to the job than he is. My preference would be balletic - Miss piggy compared to Fonteyn...
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    edited October 15

    I am not revelling in the idea of a Labour government with a stonking majority. But we need a general election immediately. The country needs a general election.

    What is more, I would argue that the Conservative Party needs a general election. I cannot see a way back for them in power, as the bad news will just keep rolling in. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party.

    But the bigger problem for the Conservative Party is that too many people at the top will not - indeed, do not at the moment - see the reasons they are in the mire. Too many will not want to change.

    My assumption is that the Conservatives are a lot better than the labour party at seeing the need to adapt to changing circumstances, because they are generally more pragmatic. But we will now see if this is really still the case. It may well be that Brexit, Boris Johnson and the MPs who are now in place mean that the party descend in to the type of farce that the labour party got itself in to, around 2015. If that happens, it really is the end for the party - an extinction level event. Can the MP's sort themselves out?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042

    Good morning, everyone.

    As your new Chancellor, I shall endeavour to-

    Bugger. Just been fired.

    I'd like to thank you for your service, providing a beacon of stability in difficult times and in standing by me throughout.

    I'd like to, but I cant, because you've been rubbish and trashed the country, you idiot. And you've made me look an idiot while you were at it.

    Idiot. Good riddance.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Heathener said:

    pigeon said:

    The country and everyone in it continues, of course, to be held hostage by the Conservative Party, and its extraordinary ability to replace each leader with a more incompetent successor. And we shouldn't kid ourselves that there's not ample opportunity for it to drag itself and us further into the mire. A panic eviction of Liz Truss will trigger a leadership election under the current rules, meaning we'll probably have to end up waiting, in the midst of multiple crises, with Truss as a powerless caretaker until at least Christmas, whilst the MPs whittle the list down again, and the demented old fucks in the membership have to be schmoozed and courted again. And we know where that ends. The Blukip faction in the Parliamentary party will get Braverman into the run-off and the reactionary fossil bigot suicide squad of superannuated home counties golf club bores will vote her in.

    Never, ever assume that things can't get even worse.

    Braverman vs Badenoch would be the ultimate hell on earth short of Putin raining down bombs on the UK.

    There are still plenty of people on the right, a few of them on here, who still don't get it.

    We are sick and tired of this right wing ideological crap that has driven this country into a cul-de-sac. The lack of basic common sense, extending into economic mismanagement, is breathtaking.

    Whatever the anti-woke brigade like to think in their embittered old state, most people are more interested in their mortgage interest rate than whether someone wishes to identify female. The tory party have completely lost perspective and deserve a long, long, time in the political wilderness.
    Braverman vs Badenoch would be a general strike until a general election scenario. Only so much the country will take.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176
    Pulpstar said:

    MikeL said:

    There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.

    But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:

    1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.

    2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.

    He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.

    Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.

    Davey's win came after Swinson had a shot at a GE though, Corbyn was only ousted after a poor GE.
    Truss has had one poor budget and she's suffered a heavy price for it losing her right hand man and bringing in someone who is from the other wing.
    I watched the presser, all I can say is she's not as gifted at making up bullshit and lieing as Boris was.
    Let's see what Hunt comes up with for Halloween as outside the fiscal the rest of her Premiership (Dealing with the Queens death and Ukraine mainly) has been spot on.
    I've done a risky lay of a 2022 exit for her.

    She needs to survive the next couple of weeks and, if she does, I think she makes it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    Nigelb said:

    Sub optimal.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/status/1580729957550272513
    Moderators closed tonight's Wisconsin Senate debate by asking each candidate to say something they find admirable about the other.

    Lt. Gov Mandela Barnes (D) said Sen. Ron Johnson (R) is a "family man."

    Johnson said Barnes is "against America."

    The audience booed Johnson.

    I’m not surprised. What was he thinking?

    To say you find it admirable that your opponent is against America is in effect to admit to treason.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,882
    darkage said:

    I am not revelling in the idea of a Labour government with a stonking majority. But we need a general election immediately. The country needs a general election.

    What is more, I would argue that the Conservative Party needs a general election. I cannot see a way back for them in power, as the bad news will just keep rolling in. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party.

    But the bigger problem for the Conservative Party is that too many people at the top will not - indeed, do not at the moment - see the reasons they are in the mire. Too many will not want to change.

    My assumption is that the Conservatives are a lot better than the labour party at seeing the need to adapt to changing circumstances, because they are generally more pragmatic. But we will now see if this is really still the case. It may well be that Brexit, Boris Johnson and the MPs who are now in place mean that the party descend in to the type of farce that the labour party got itself in to, around 2015. If that happens, it really is the end for the party - an extinction level event. Can the MP's sort themselves out?
    You may be right about the greater degree of pragmatism but that hasn't been much in evidence of late. This right-wing obsession with an anti-woke agenda has virtually nothing to do with what matters about running this country properly.

    Part of the problem here is a disconnect between the ageing membership and most of the population. It's not helped by being egged on by the Daily Express and the Daily Mail.

    A sea-change is coming to rival 1979 and 1997. In the wilderness years will the tories reinvent themselves again? The answer is 'yes' because there is ALWAYS the need for a sensible, pro-market, pro-money making, party of the right. But that's where the emphasis needs to be: prosperity. NOT on stupid cul-de-sac side shows that have bugger all to do with everyday life for ordinary people.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Heathener said:

    pigeon said:

    The country and everyone in it continues, of course, to be held hostage by the Conservative Party, and its extraordinary ability to replace each leader with a more incompetent successor. And we shouldn't kid ourselves that there's not ample opportunity for it to drag itself and us further into the mire. A panic eviction of Liz Truss will trigger a leadership election under the current rules, meaning we'll probably have to end up waiting, in the midst of multiple crises, with Truss as a powerless caretaker until at least Christmas, whilst the MPs whittle the list down again, and the demented old fucks in the membership have to be schmoozed and courted again. And we know where that ends. The Blukip faction in the Parliamentary party will get Braverman into the run-off and the reactionary fossil bigot suicide squad of superannuated home counties golf club bores will vote her in.

    Never, ever assume that things can't get even worse.

    Braverman vs Badenoch would be the ultimate hell on earth short of Putin raining down bombs on the UK.

    There are still plenty of people on the right, a few of them on here, who still don't get it.

    We are sick and tired of this right wing ideological crap that has driven this country into a cul-de-sac. The lack of basic common sense, extending into economic mismanagement, is breathtaking.

    Whatever the anti-woke brigade like to think in their embittered old state, most people are more interested in their mortgage interest rate than whether someone wishes to identify female. The tory party have completely lost perspective and deserve a long, long, time in the political wilderness.
    Braverman vs Badenoch would be a general strike until a general election scenario. Only so much the country will take.
    The tory MPs would be unlikely to let either of them on to the ballot. The problem is what their aggrieved supporters could do to the decision making capability of any government that is formed after the new leader is in place, particularly if it is a coronation of Sunak scenario.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Times article reveals Kwarteng's grasp of metaphor is as sketchy as his economics .

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1581026156983160832
    Kwasi Kwarteng thinks Liz Truss has only brought herself a few weeks by sacking him and pledging to raise corporation tax

    He believes the ‘wagons are circling’ on the end of her Premiership

    Isn’t that right? It refers to the process of forming the last line of defence around which the Native Americans would then circle themselves
    He surely meant to say that the vultures are circling?
    He must struggle with the y axis on a graph if he can't get that sort of thng right.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,048
    darkage said:

    I am not revelling in the idea of a Labour government with a stonking majority. But we need a general election immediately. The country needs a general election.

    What is more, I would argue that the Conservative Party needs a general election. I cannot see a way back for them in power, as the bad news will just keep rolling in. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party.

    But the bigger problem for the Conservative Party is that too many people at the top will not - indeed, do not at the moment - see the reasons they are in the mire. Too many will not want to change.

    My assumption is that the Conservatives are a lot better than the labour party at seeing the need to adapt to changing circumstances, because they are generally more pragmatic. But we will now see if this is really still the case. It may well be that Brexit, Boris Johnson and the MPs who are now in place mean that the party descend in to the type of farce that the labour party got itself in to, around 2015. If that happens, it really is the end for the party - an extinction level event. Can the MP's sort themselves out?
    I'm unsure that the Conservatives are good at seeing the need to adapt. The Conservative Party was very tired in 1992, and over the next five years they became very threadbare, despite Major's best efforts. In 1997 the party was an absolute mess (I'd argue they're worse at the moment).

    But sanity did not come immediately. Hague was a good man, but if anything the party became more extreme. They then elected IDS as leader (of all people!), and they only started the tack back towards sanity with Howard in 2003. Six years after their first loss. They did not get power for another seven.

    I cannot see the Conservatives under Truss (or whoever replaces her) tacking towards sanity - they're too used to trying to con the public with pointless stuff like Brexit - and the public aren't in the mood now to be conned, by the Conservatives at least. And when they lose at the next GE, there is a great danger that many good Conservative MPs will lose their seats (or choose not to stand), whilst many of the nutters remain.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157
    edited October 15
    Heathener said:

    Robert Peston said last night that there was an easy mechanism for tory MPs to remove Liz Truss any time they want to.

    He didn't elaborate but short of assassination, to what was he referring? Pesto must know the leadership rules.

    He also mentioned only two possible replacements. One is Ben Wallace (yuck). The other is Rishi Sunak who has the benefit of being proven totally right about what Liz Truss would mean for the markets and economy. I think Rishi would steady the ship sufficiently to limit tory losses to around 150-200 MPs after the GE, although closer to the lower end imho.

    Of course, the merely self-serving and useless faction of the Tory Party knows that the barking mad faction won't permit a non-barking candidate to receive a coronation. Hence, paralysis. It's reported that many senior MPs plan to call on Truss to resign... next week. Why wait? Most likely because they're terrified of having to stage the pantomime circus of a contested leadership election for the rest of the year, at the end of which the appalling judgment of the barking mad faction and their like-minded allies in the party membership will lumber them and us with an even more calamitous replacement.

    God alone knows where or when this ends. If the Tories can't agree on a unity candidate - or, failing that, at least change the rules to junk the membership ballot - then Truss will carry on until January 2025. Tory MPs know that they are cordially loathed by the bulk of the electorate and that a majority of them likely face the sack, so they're going to cling on by their fingernails until the last possible moment. It's very much like the mid-Nineties in that respect, though I hesitate to liken Truss and Kwarteng Hunt to Major and Clarke. It would be a dreadful insult to the latter duo.

    Truss could plausibly be described as an Aethelred the Unready for our millennium. Except that's probably a gross insult to Aethelred, too.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808
    edited October 15
    Heathener said:

    pigeon said:

    The country and everyone in it continues, of course, to be held hostage by the Conservative Party, and its extraordinary ability to replace each leader with a more incompetent successor. And we shouldn't kid ourselves that there's not ample opportunity for it to drag itself and us further into the mire. A panic eviction of Liz Truss will trigger a leadership election under the current rules, meaning we'll probably have to end up waiting, in the midst of multiple crises, with Truss as a powerless caretaker until at least Christmas, whilst the MPs whittle the list down again, and the demented old fucks in the membership have to be schmoozed and courted again. And we know where that ends. The Blukip faction in the Parliamentary party will get Braverman into the run-off and the reactionary fossil bigot suicide squad of superannuated home counties golf club bores will vote her in.

    Never, ever assume that things can't get even worse.

    Braverman vs Badenoch would be the ultimate hell on earth short of Putin raining down bombs on the UK.

    There are still plenty of people on the right, a few of them on here, who still don't get it.

    We are sick and tired of this right wing ideological crap that has driven this country into a cul-de-sac. The lack of basic common sense, extending into economic mismanagement, is breathtaking.

    Whatever the anti-woke brigade like to think in their embittered old state, most people are more interested in their mortgage interest rate than whether someone wishes to identify female. The tory party have completely lost perspective and deserve a long, long, time in the political wilderness.
    Yep. It’s the mirror of the situation we’d be in if Richard Burgon had somehow managed to become PM.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855

    Pulpstar said:

    MikeL said:

    There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.

    But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:

    1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.

    2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.

    He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.

    Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.

    Davey's win came after Swinson had a shot at a GE though, Corbyn was only ousted after a poor GE.
    Truss has had one poor budget and she's suffered a heavy price for it losing her right hand man and bringing in someone who is from the other wing.
    I watched the presser, all I can say is she's not as gifted at making up bullshit and lieing as Boris was.
    Let's see what Hunt comes up with for Halloween as outside the fiscal the rest of her Premiership (Dealing with the Queens death and Ukraine mainly) has been spot on.
    I've done a risky lay of a 2022 exit for her.

    She needs to survive the next couple of weeks and, if she does, I think she makes it.
    I’m just struggling to see how she’s forced out unless she gives up.

    Her cabinet probably won’t resign, as Hunt’s the only one who’s not a batshit diehard loyalist, and those who have ambitions of their own will be mindful of what happened to Sunak. The 22 won’t grant a vote. Tory MPs wouldn’t support a VONC in the Commons as it would precipitate an election.

    I think she will survive at least until May. If the locals are a massacre then perhaps the Cabinet will move against her.

    How much power she will actually have is a different question. I suspect her authority has taken a near-fatal blow, and we have already seen this cabinet thinks collective responsibility is something that happens to other people. Hunt, in particular, is in a position to do pretty much whatever he pleases (which may or may not be a good thing).

  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461
    edited October 15
    Rishi is the man on the White Charger. Using the Tories favourite expression 'He got all the big calls right'. Infact he did more than that. He got ALL the calls right.

    He was just let down by a very stupid membership and more significantly a bunch of Tory MPs who are so self serving that they suddenly coalesced around Truss-knowing her to be hopeless-in the hope of personal advancement.

    Those who wear I've never kissed a Tory badge should do so with pride. As Jessop says. We need to get rid of this tarnished Party before even more lasting damage is done
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808

    Pulpstar said:

    MikeL said:

    There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.

    But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:

    1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.

    2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.

    He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.

    Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.

    Davey's win came after Swinson had a shot at a GE though, Corbyn was only ousted after a poor GE.
    Truss has had one poor budget and she's suffered a heavy price for it losing her right hand man and bringing in someone who is from the other wing.
    I watched the presser, all I can say is she's not as gifted at making up bullshit and lieing as Boris was.
    Let's see what Hunt comes up with for Halloween as outside the fiscal the rest of her Premiership (Dealing with the Queens death and Ukraine mainly) has been spot on.
    I've done a risky lay of a 2022 exit for her.

    She needs to survive the next couple of weeks and, if she does, I think she makes it.
    I thought about that, but ISTM that if the MPs do stage some sort of concerted resignation or action next week, she may well just go. How the story ends is all too familiar to us now, and what would be the point of clinging on?
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,210
    MikeL said:

    There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.

    But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:

    1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.

    2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.

    He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.

    Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.

    The “safe option” has seen the LibDems marooned on 9%ish in the polls right now despite a massively unpopular Tory government.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157
    Heathener said:

    darkage said:

    I am not revelling in the idea of a Labour government with a stonking majority. But we need a general election immediately. The country needs a general election.

    What is more, I would argue that the Conservative Party needs a general election. I cannot see a way back for them in power, as the bad news will just keep rolling in. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party.

    But the bigger problem for the Conservative Party is that too many people at the top will not - indeed, do not at the moment - see the reasons they are in the mire. Too many will not want to change.

    My assumption is that the Conservatives are a lot better than the labour party at seeing the need to adapt to changing circumstances, because they are generally more pragmatic. But we will now see if this is really still the case. It may well be that Brexit, Boris Johnson and the MPs who are now in place mean that the party descend in to the type of farce that the labour party got itself in to, around 2015. If that happens, it really is the end for the party - an extinction level event. Can the MP's sort themselves out?
    You may be right about the greater degree of pragmatism but that hasn't been much in evidence of late. This right-wing obsession with an anti-woke agenda has virtually nothing to do with what matters about running this country properly.

    Part of the problem here is a disconnect between the ageing membership and most of the population. It's not helped by being egged on by the Daily Express and the Daily Mail.

    A sea-change is coming to rival 1979 and 1997. In the wilderness years will the tories reinvent themselves again? The answer is 'yes' because there is ALWAYS the need for a sensible, pro-market, pro-money making, party of the right. But that's where the emphasis needs to be: prosperity. NOT on stupid cul-de-sac side shows that have bugger all to do with everyday life for ordinary people.
    The Express is a shit website chained to a low circulation legacy rag that can't even be dignified with the appellation of chip wrap, whilst (if we're lucky) the Mail will be completely destroyed by the Doreen Lawrence et al. lawsuit, in like fashion to the old Screws of the World.

    And the sooner all the Tory members who queued up to vote for Truss go into dementia care or simply shuffle off so that they can do no more harm, the better.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,241
    Andy_JS said:

    I am not revelling in the idea of a Labour government with a stonking majority. But we need a general election immediately. The country needs a general election.

    What is more, I would argue that the Conservative Party needs a general election. I cannot see a way back for them in power, as the bad news will just keep rolling in. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party.

    But the bigger problem for the Conservative Party is that too many people at the top will not - indeed, do not at the moment - see the reasons they are in the mire. Too many will not want to change.

    I still think a Lab/LD coalition is more likely than a Lab majority.
    I don’t think it is, though as I think it would be better for the country it is what I’d like to see.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461
    felix said:

    I have zero seconds available to excuse the appaling shambles of the Liz Truss premiership. She has to go. However, I dispute the notion that all of the country's travails can be laid completely at the dorrs of the politicians. Disfuncionality is endemic in the politics , press, institutions and too many of its voters. This is rooted in an unwillingness to accept any notion of the need to take difficult decisions or to deny any interest group their bounty of taxpayers funds. The country is broke and it cannot be fixed by redistribution here or extra cash there. By blaming greedy pensioners here or lazy scroungers there. Sadly the voters do not want to know the hard truth and this is a key reason why we have such crap politicians. Labour will likely win big next time and D-ream will once again top the charts - only things will not get better for long. We all know it but no-one dares to say it.

    A lot to like in that post felix.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,233
    Jeremy Hunt has done an interview on Sky News.

    Tax rises and spending cuts looks to be the order of the day.

    Trussonomics is well and truly over. Crashed and burnt.

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1581173473485160448?s=61&t=ee2tq1SGEbCkoG5hiRPvVQ
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,882
    This part might be slightly more contentious but I've been thinking about Starmer's chances of longevity and I'm beginning to rate them as high if he stays in good health.

    Starmer is no Blair but, you know, after all this turbulence (4 chancellors in 4 months FFS!) a competent steady eddy may come to be greatly appreciated by the British public.

    I'm thinking of an Angela Merkel type figure. Nothing outlandish. Just good, sound, management.*


    * yep I know I know about the absolute howler on Russian gas
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808
    edited October 15

    darkage said:

    I am not revelling in the idea of a Labour government with a stonking majority. But we need a general election immediately. The country needs a general election.

    What is more, I would argue that the Conservative Party needs a general election. I cannot see a way back for them in power, as the bad news will just keep rolling in. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party.

    But the bigger problem for the Conservative Party is that too many people at the top will not - indeed, do not at the moment - see the reasons they are in the mire. Too many will not want to change.

    My assumption is that the Conservatives are a lot better than the labour party at seeing the need to adapt to changing circumstances, because they are generally more pragmatic. But we will now see if this is really still the case. It may well be that Brexit, Boris Johnson and the MPs who are now in place mean that the party descend in to the type of farce that the labour party got itself in to, around 2015. If that happens, it really is the end for the party - an extinction level event. Can the MP's sort themselves out?
    I'm unsure that the Conservatives are good at seeing the need to adapt. The Conservative Party was very tired in 1992, and over the next five years they became very threadbare, despite Major's best efforts. In 1997 the party was an absolute mess (I'd argue they're worse at the moment).

    But sanity did not come immediately. Hague was a good man, but if anything the party became more extreme. They then elected IDS as leader (of all people!), and they only started the tack back towards sanity with Howard in 2003. Six years after their first loss. They did not get power for another seven.

    I cannot see the Conservatives under Truss (or whoever replaces her) tacking towards sanity - they're too used to trying to con the public with pointless stuff like Brexit - and the public aren't in the mood now to be conned, by the Conservatives at least. And when they lose at the next GE, there is a great danger that many good Conservative MPs will lose their seats (or choose not to stand), whilst many of the nutters remain.
    A problem both parties have. In a close-fought marginal, parties (should) take care to pick more credible and capable candidates - ones who will both come across well to the voters and have the necessary leadership skills to organise and front a campaign. And the voters’ judgement between the two candidates will tilt in favour of the one who comes across best.

    In a safe seat, it’s easier for the selection committee to indulge itself by choosing an ideologue, and they don’t have to worry so much about capability since they know they can win the seat without any organisation whatsoever.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    edited October 15

    Andy_JS said:

    I am not revelling in the idea of a Labour government with a stonking majority. But we need a general election immediately. The country needs a general election.

    What is more, I would argue that the Conservative Party needs a general election. I cannot see a way back for them in power, as the bad news will just keep rolling in. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party.

    But the bigger problem for the Conservative Party is that too many people at the top will not - indeed, do not at the moment - see the reasons they are in the mire. Too many will not want to change.

    I still think a Lab/LD coalition is more likely than a Lab majority.
    I don’t think it is, though as I think it would be better for the country it is what I’d like to see.
    The Lib Dems won’t join any coalition without a pledge to reform the voting system.

    And at the moment it looks like Starmer won’t give them that.

    However, he has the priceless advantage that if he has more MPs than the Tories - which at the moment looks a safe assumption - it’s going to be nearly impossible for the government to continue. The SNP would only have to abstain and the King’s Speech would be defeated and Labour would go in.

    And can anyone see the SNP voting *for* a Tory government? That would be a true scales falling from the eyes moment of their supporters. They wouldn’t dare.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157

    MikeL said:

    There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.

    But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:

    1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.

    2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.

    He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.

    Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.

    The “safe option” has seen the LibDems marooned on 9%ish in the polls right now despite a massively unpopular Tory government.
    I reckon the LD position in the polls is merely a consequence of a desire on the part of the bulk of the electorate to defenestrate the Tories at any cost. Or, put more succinctly, tactical voting. There's probably an LD core vote of about 7-8% plus a small top-up that consists of anti-Tory voters in the three dozen or so seats where they are incumbent, or where it's reasonably clear that they (not Labour) are the main challengers to a sitting Tory.

    As in 1997, it's perfectly possible for the LDs to lose vote share but still pick up quite a lot of seats, given the right circumstances.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,241
    Taz said:

    Jeremy Hunt has done an interview on Sky News.

    Tax rises and spending cuts looks to be the order of the day.

    Trussonomics is well and truly over. Crashed and burnt.

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1581173473485160448?s=61&t=ee2tq1SGEbCkoG5hiRPvVQ

    PMINO
  • MikeL said:

    There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.

    But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:

    1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.

    2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.

    He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.

    Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.

    I don't care whether Signal would do better this time or not. We had no government for 2 months in the summer. We then had 2 weeks of mourning and 2 weeks of political collapse.

    What are the Tories now wanting? Bin Truss and then have another 2 months with no government whilst the party spends another period at best introspective and at worst tearing each other apart?

    Enough. They do not wish to govern. They have proven repeatedly unfit to govern. General Election already - frankly looking at the polls I struggle to see how they justify not having one.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,882
    edited October 15
    The chances of Labour failing to win an outright majority are now <5%

    I've been around the block too many times to fail to see the writing on the wall. They would have to do something spectacularly stupid from here not to land an outright win.

    I suspect we may see some more national polls with the tories below 20%. You don't come back from that in 2 years. They have trashed their reputation for economic competence. It will take at least 10 years and two election defeats before they are vying for power again.
  • pingping Posts: 3,201

    MikeL said:

    There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.

    But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:

    1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.

    2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.

    He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.

    Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.

    I don't care whether Signal would do better this time or not. We had no government for 2 months in the summer. We then had 2 weeks of mourning and 2 weeks of political collapse.

    What are the Tories now wanting? Bin Truss and then have another 2 months with no government whilst the party spends another period at best introspective and at worst tearing each other apart?

    Enough. They do not wish to govern. They have proven repeatedly unfit to govern. General Election already - frankly looking at the polls I struggle to see how they justify not having one.
    They justify not having one because of the polls.

    You know how this works, Rochdale!
  • I am not revelling in the idea of a Labour government with a stonking majority. But we need a general election immediately. The country needs a general election.

    What is more, I would argue that the Conservative Party needs a general election. I cannot see a way back for them in power, as the bad news will just keep rolling in. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party.

    But the bigger problem for the Conservative Party is that too many people at the top will not - indeed, do not at the moment - see the reasons they are in the mire. Too many will not want to change.

    Do we need the Conservative Party?

    Personally I've always thought good Government needs a good Opposition. Poor Opposition allows the Government to get away with murder - witness Labour under Corbyn and the Conservatives under...well take your pick but I would certainly highlight their failure to take Blair to task over Iraq. However if the Conservatives cannot field a decent team to counter Labour and hold it to account, wouldn't we be better off with Ian Blackford as LOTO, and Sir Ed Davey as leader of England's second largest Party?

    It could happen. Much more of this malarky and TSE will be collecting on his 15% bet and the Conservatives could be reduced to a couple of Scottish MPs. The Party would quite literally be over. The shape of politics would change radically.

    Good thing? Not sure. Probably not.

    Couldn't happen? Don't you believe it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808
    edited October 15
    Roger said:

    felix said:

    I have zero seconds available to excuse the appaling shambles of the Liz Truss premiership. She has to go. However, I dispute the notion that all of the country's travails can be laid completely at the dorrs of the politicians. Disfuncionality is endemic in the politics , press, institutions and too many of its voters. This is rooted in an unwillingness to accept any notion of the need to take difficult decisions or to deny any interest group their bounty of taxpayers funds. The country is broke and it cannot be fixed by redistribution here or extra cash there. By blaming greedy pensioners here or lazy scroungers there. Sadly the voters do not want to know the hard truth and this is a key reason why we have such crap politicians. Labour will likely win big next time and D-ream will once again top the charts - only things will not get better for long. We all know it but no-one dares to say it.

    A lot to like in that post felix.
    There is.

    A big point in Sunak’s favour is that he did at least try to tell some home truths, at the beginning of his leadership campaign, even though they were small ones and he quickly backtracked when he saw how much better Loopy Liz was doing by peddling fantasy politics.

    People who’ve thought hard about it, which takes in a fair few on here, know that big changes to our politics and economics are both desirable and becoming increasingly necessary. Stand back and many people can see that things like the triple lock have to go and the basis of taxation needs shifting away from income toward wealth, or at least to property or land.

    But where is the grown up who will give us the necessary talk, and how will we all react to it?

    Big changes are usually only possible after a big crisis; at least we can’t fault our politicians for getting that latter underway.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157
    Taz said:

    Jeremy Hunt has done an interview on Sky News.

    Tax rises and spending cuts looks to be the order of the day.

    Trussonomics is well and truly over. Crashed and burnt.

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1581173473485160448?s=61&t=ee2tq1SGEbCkoG5hiRPvVQ

    So, now we are going to get Sunak's policies presided over by a Prime Minister with no mandate from the electorate, MPs, or even the dipstick Tory members (because, it would seem at this moment in time, she's going to deliver the polar opposite of her campaign prospectus.)

    I wonder how many hours this will last before the next shifting of the nation's political tectonic plates? I'm struggling to keep up.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    Vote Truss, get Rishi.

    Eventually.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461
    pigeon said:

    Heathener said:

    Robert Peston said last night that there was an easy mechanism for tory MPs to remove Liz Truss any time they want to.

    He didn't elaborate but short of assassination, to what was he referring? Pesto must know the leadership rules.

    He also mentioned only two possible replacements. One is Ben Wallace (yuck). The other is Rishi Sunak who has the benefit of being proven totally right about what Liz Truss would mean for the markets and economy. I think Rishi would steady the ship sufficiently to limit tory losses to around 150-200 MPs after the GE, although closer to the lower end imho.

    Of course, the merely self-serving and useless faction of the Tory Party knows that the barking mad faction won't permit a non-barking candidate to receive a coronation. Hence, paralysis. It's reported that many senior MPs plan to call on Truss to resign... next week. Why wait? Most likely because they're terrified of having to stage the pantomime circus of a contested leadership election for the rest of the year, at the end of which the appalling judgment of the barking mad faction and their like-minded allies in the party membership will lumber them and us with an even more calamitous replacement.

    Truss could plausibly be described as an Aethelred the Unready for our millennium. Except that's probably a gross insult to Aethelred, too.
    Does Aethelred ttranslate into modern English as Airhead
  • @Heathener

    I get what you are saying but it's currently evens Labour to win an Outright. Personally I think that's a good bet. Should be more like two to one on [33%].
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,366

    Not having a prime minister would be OK except in some weird emergency situations.

    Where the new person went wrong was when she tried to do things. If she stops doing that the country will be fine.

    Sir Humphrey lives!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    Taz said:


    Trussonomics is well and truly over. Crashed and burnt.

    But it gave the Anglo-Zanzibar War a run for its money in terms of longevity....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    Looks like fiscal tightening from both ends by Hunt. Should help gilt yields when he gives the Halloween event
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,450
    Heathener said:

    Robert Peston said last night that there was an easy mechanism for tory MPs to remove Liz Truss any time they want to.

    He didn't elaborate but short of assassination, to what was he referring? Pesto must know the leadership rules.

    He also mentioned only two possible replacements. One is Ben Wallace (yuck). The other is Rishi Sunak who has the benefit of being proven totally right about what Liz Truss would mean for the markets and economy. I think Rishi would steady the ship sufficiently to limit tory losses to around 150-200 MPs after the GE, although closer to the lower end imho.

    SKS now out to 5/1 for next PM so punters are pretty sure they'll find a way to remove her somehow.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157

    Enough. They do not wish to govern. They have proven repeatedly unfit to govern. General Election already - frankly looking at the polls I struggle to see how they justify not having one.

    Most of them are going to be unemployed after the next election. That is the only justification they feel they need.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,151
    @Jeremy_Hunt taking part in a political ice bucket challenge for the Truss govt.
    Says everything Truss didn't yesterday. Admits:
    - mistake to cut tax for richest
    - mistake to 'fly blind' without OBR
    - spending can't go up as planned

    Oh, and some taxes will go up.
    The fantasy era of cakeism, started by Johnson and accelerated by Truss, seems over.
    But is her premiership too?


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1581178711512350720
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,366
    Taz said:

    Jeremy Hunt has done an interview on Sky News.

    Tax rises and spending cuts looks to be the order of the day.

    Trussonomics is well and truly over. Crashed and burnt.

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1581173473485160448?s=61&t=ee2tq1SGEbCkoG5hiRPvVQ

    That might not be a good thing for party or country if it means a return to austerity.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,179
    Good morning everyone. At least the weather seems fair!
    Roger refers to Ethelred the Unready; I'm no scholar of Anglo-Saxon but I believe Unready in this context means badly advised, and certainly if anyone is advising our prime minister then they are not doing a very good job of it!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808
    Hunt on R4: “Some taxes will have to go up”
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176
    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MikeL said:

    There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.

    But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:

    1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.

    2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.

    He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.

    Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.

    Davey's win came after Swinson had a shot at a GE though, Corbyn was only ousted after a poor GE.
    Truss has had one poor budget and she's suffered a heavy price for it losing her right hand man and bringing in someone who is from the other wing.
    I watched the presser, all I can say is she's not as gifted at making up bullshit and lieing as Boris was.
    Let's see what Hunt comes up with for Halloween as outside the fiscal the rest of her Premiership (Dealing with the Queens death and Ukraine mainly) has been spot on.
    I've done a risky lay of a 2022 exit for her.

    She needs to survive the next couple of weeks and, if she does, I think she makes it.
    I thought about that, but ISTM that if the MPs do stage some sort of concerted resignation or action next week, she may well just go. How the story ends is all too familiar to us now, and what would be the point of clinging on?
    Dunno, may well end up with lots of egg on my face but odds-on seems tight and there's only a few weeks until Christmas.

    I'm gambling the process doesn't conclude until early 2023, so that's when she officially "exits" as Tory leader.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,151
    Though he didn’t say so in these exact words Chancellor Hunt’s message to Sky News was clear — prepare for major real terms spending cuts (and maybe further tax rises too). Trussonomics, such as it was, is dead.

    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1581170205757407232
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757

    Taz said:

    Jeremy Hunt has done an interview on Sky News.

    Tax rises and spending cuts looks to be the order of the day.

    Trussonomics is well and truly over. Crashed and burnt.

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1581173473485160448?s=61&t=ee2tq1SGEbCkoG5hiRPvVQ

    That might not be a good thing for party or country if it means a return to austerity.
    No-one wants it but it's what the country needs.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461
    Hunt isn't bad but the more he says the more obvious it becomes that Truss will have to go
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,151
    Hunt sounding Prime Ministerial on R4….
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157

    Good morning everyone. At least the weather seems fair!
    Roger refers to Ethelred the Unready; I'm no scholar of Anglo-Saxon but I believe Unready in this context means badly advised, and certainly if anyone is advising our prime minister then they are not doing a very good job of it!

    Aethelred Unred - Noble Counsel, No Counsel
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,670
    Mr. Royale, I think she has a better chance of making it to 2023 as PM than the market odds imply. Green either way, though.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    One of the things I have noticed on this website is the prevalent assumption that history repeats itself which is actually a flawed assumption. With the exception of a declining number of dinosaurs the MPs in the Conservative party are different to those who were around in the 1990s. The experience of the tories in the 1990s was not repeating a previous episode in its history. However, the experience of the 90's and 00's will have an influence on how it addresses the current problems.

    Conservative MPs are not generally subject to the same ideological delusions that many Labour MP's have, particularly as there is a sizeable contingent of labour MPs that arrived in the Corbyn era. The Labour party are also saddled by archaic procedural rules that make it difficult to sort out problems with the leadership, and the need to agree policy at 'conference'. I've seen the madness of the labour party as I was once a member and activist. I now vote Conservative and still probably will.

    The idea that Starmer would be a better technocratic leader dealing with an economic crisis than someone like Sunak is for the birds. He presents this image in opposition. But he will be under fire from the unions, and from the activist base and their insane, unrealistic demands to raise benefits, raise pay, stop the latest strikes in light of the endless 'cost of living crisis' etc. The pressure will be far greater than that which may arise to a conservative leader from the self interested demands of ageing base who ultimately have few levers over the party whilst it is in power.

    Starmer presents himself as a Blair like figure, but Blair did not come to power in the middle of an impossible economic crisis requiring very difficult decisions to be made.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808
    pigeon said:

    MikeL said:

    There seems to be an assumption that Sunak would again lose a members vote - if it went to one.

    But is that right? He got 43% last time. He would surely do better for two reasons:

    1) The economic failure of the last few weeks and Sunak being proved right about what would happen.

    2) The last few weeks would make members more risk averse - ie more inclined to choose whoever MPs put first and also more sceptical about anyone who doesn't obviously have the stature of a PM.

    He only needs another 7% and I would have thought he would have every chance of getting it - certainly against someone like Braverman who would feel like a similar candidate to Truss.

    Indeed the LDs provided a very good example of point 2) with Davey losing to Swinson but then beating Moran the following year - ie the first attempt went badly wrong so they then went for the safe option next time.

    The “safe option” has seen the LibDems marooned on 9%ish in the polls right now despite a massively unpopular Tory government.
    I reckon the LD position in the polls is merely a consequence of a desire on the part of the bulk of the electorate to defenestrate the Tories at any cost. Or, put more succinctly, tactical voting. There's probably an LD core vote of about 7-8% plus a small top-up that consists of anti-Tory voters in the three dozen or so seats where they are incumbent, or where it's reasonably clear that they (not Labour) are the main challengers to a sitting Tory.

    As in 1997, it's perfectly possible for the LDs to lose vote share but still pick up quite a lot of seats, given the right circumstances.
    Yes, and in the runup to 1997 the LD poll rating dropped down to almost 12%, compared to a moving average a fraction north of 10% now. A LibDem surge looks most unlikely but there is no reason why they cannot do well where they need to, and make the effort. If there’s a message from the past year or two’s local and national by-elections, it is that.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819

    Taz said:


    Trussonomics is well and truly over. Crashed and burnt.

    But it gave the Anglo-Zanzibar War a run for its money in terms of longevity....
    And had more long term consequences..
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620
    edited October 15
    Imagine a football team with Liz Truss as manager, and Kwasi Kwarteng in defence.

    That is why the bet of the day is on Crystal Palace to win at Leicester City. 3.0 at various bookies at present, though I would also tip CP to win, both teams to score at 5.50 with Bet 365. With Maddison, Barnes and Daka we are likely to score, but will ship loads.

    I am only going so that I can boo the manager...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    edited October 15
    All hail the Hunt technocracy
  • Taz said:

    Jeremy Hunt has done an interview on Sky News.

    Tax rises and spending cuts looks to be the order of the day.

    Trussonomics is well and truly over. Crashed and burnt.

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1581173473485160448?s=61&t=ee2tq1SGEbCkoG5hiRPvVQ

    That might not be a good thing for party or country if it means a return to austerity.
    He has to start from where he is.

    Sure, nobody wants austerity but if that's what it takes to calm the markets, so be it. After that he can inch his way forward. It's not going to be fun, but neither is living in La-La Land, where we have dwelt for too long.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,151
    You know what's a bigger deal than today's political chaos? The mortgage bill surge that's coming 🧵

    https://twitter.com/TorstenBell/status/1581175015189274625
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808

    I am not revelling in the idea of a Labour government with a stonking majority. But we need a general election immediately. The country needs a general election.

    What is more, I would argue that the Conservative Party needs a general election. I cannot see a way back for them in power, as the bad news will just keep rolling in. The longer this goes on, the greater the damage to the party.

    But the bigger problem for the Conservative Party is that too many people at the top will not - indeed, do not at the moment - see the reasons they are in the mire. Too many will not want to change.

    Do we need the Conservative Party?

    Personally I've always thought good Government needs a good Opposition. Poor Opposition allows the Government to get away with murder - witness Labour under Corbyn and the Conservatives under...well take your pick but I would certainly highlight their failure to take Blair to task over Iraq. However if the Conservatives cannot field a decent team to counter Labour and hold it to account, wouldn't we be better off with Ian Blackford as LOTO, and Sir Ed Davey as leader of England's second largest Party?

    It could happen. Much more of this malarky and TSE will be collecting on his 15% bet and the Conservatives could be reduced to a couple of Scottish MPs. The Party would quite literally be over. The shape of politics would change radically.

    Good thing? Not sure. Probably not.

    Couldn't happen? Don't you believe it.
    It could happen once, as in Canada. In the long run there will always be a party whose purpose is essentially to defend existing wealth, privilege and culture - if we learn nothing else from HY’s posts we can all see that it is this that drives him along.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,210

    Good morning everyone. At least the weather seems fair!
    Roger refers to Ethelred the Unready; I'm no scholar of Anglo-Saxon but I believe Unready in this context means badly advised, and certainly if anyone is advising our prime minister then they are not doing a very good job of it!

    I am a scholar of Anglo-Saxon - well, I was one at university many years ago - and that is spot on. Aethelraed Unraed means “good advice, ill-advised”. It’s basically the original “he needs better advisers”.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,157

    Taz said:

    Jeremy Hunt has done an interview on Sky News.

    Tax rises and spending cuts looks to be the order of the day.

    Trussonomics is well and truly over. Crashed and burnt.

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1581173473485160448?s=61&t=ee2tq1SGEbCkoG5hiRPvVQ

    That might not be a good thing for party or country if it means a return to austerity.
    The public has had absolutely enough of austerity. It had had enough of it years ago. But lo, here comes Osborne 2.0.

    The central conundrum of British politics is now that the only way to afford the level of spending, on health, social protections, schools and everything else, that people expect and demand is through punishingly higher taxes, directed in particular at assets rather than earnings. But such a radical change of approach will entail a binning of the entire post-1979, property speculation model of economic development, and create an awful lot of losers (particularly amongst the homeowning grey vote, which is huge and has a high turnout rate.) Which raises serious doubts about the willingness of any Government actually to do it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,670
    Dr. Foxy, could well win but Leicester won their last game (versus Forest) 4-0, and scored away against Bournemouth. Home advantage is also helpful.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855

    Taz said:

    Jeremy Hunt has done an interview on Sky News.

    Tax rises and spending cuts looks to be the order of the day.

    Trussonomics is well and truly over. Crashed and burnt.

    https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1581173473485160448?s=61&t=ee2tq1SGEbCkoG5hiRPvVQ

    That might not be a good thing for party or country if it means a return to austerity.
    He has to start from where he is.

    Sure, nobody wants austerity but if that's what it takes to calm the markets, so be it. After that he can inch his way forward. It's not going to be fun, but neither is living in La-La Land, where we have dwelt for too long.
    Austerity in the middle of a cost of living crisis is going to be absolutely catastrophic for the public sector.

    The NHS is already on the edge. Schools look set to be hit by a wave of rolling strikes. The situation in transport is - difficult.

    And that's before any new austerity hits.

    He may not have a choice, but it isn't going to be pretty at all.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176
    On the basis Hunt supersedes Rishi in the sensible stakes I'd say Rishi is now a clear lay at current odds.

    Yes, the UTOARs will try and "Brexitise" Hunt but I don't think that will wash.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,151
    Now the basic rate income tax cut to 19p feels like the next U turn. Hunt tells @BBCr4today "I very much hope we can keep that" but won't make decision yet.
    The mini Budget filleted again.


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1581183318863011841
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808
    edited October 15

    Good morning everyone. At least the weather seems fair!
    Roger refers to Ethelred the Unready; I'm no scholar of Anglo-Saxon but I believe Unready in this context means badly advised, and certainly if anyone is advising our prime minister then they are not doing a very good job of it!

    She seems rather impervious to advice, though (at least until she arrived at advice she couldn’t refuse, and in came Hunt); whereas her predecessor was overly susceptible to dodgy advice?
This discussion has been closed.