Howdy, Stranger!

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

The public really don’t rate Liz Truss – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 20 in General
The public really don’t rate Liz Truss – politicalbetting.com

Longstanding readers of PB know that Mike Smithson and myself love the Ipsos/MORI net satisfaction ratings because their data goes back nearly fifty years and it allows us to help put into context current polling and are usually a greater pointer to electoral outcomes.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,365
    Hard to see how Liz Truss can turn things around. It has still to be proved that Jeremy Hunt can calm the markets, and that he can do so without controversial spending cuts. Then there are eight more PMQs this year. Her best hope may be a rapid fall in gas prices to reduce the cost of the cap freeze and close the budget gap.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    Second!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    edited October 16
    The public were desperate to draw a line under the scandals and incompetence of the Johnson years - it was quite obvious that someone like Mordaunt was needed, assuming she could rise to the challenge.

    Instead we got Truss who has doubled down on the worst of the clown, continuing the incompetence and retaining the cabinet of numpties, whilst abandoning even those bits of the clown’s agenda that were popular.

    What is remarkable is how predictable, and predicted, this all was (except for poor Leondamus, obvs). Like a slow motion car crash, as Truss rose through the leadership contest, went before the members, and then rushed into number ten to trash everything.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,365
    Kwasi Kwarteng argued against the Government’s disastrous plan to cut the top 45p rate of tax but was over-ruled by Liz Truss, sources have told The Mail on Sunday.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11319511/Kwasi-Kwarteng-told-PM-45p-tax-policy-sacking-him.html
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    edited October 16

    IanB2 said:

    The public were desperate to draw a line under the scandals and incompetence of the Johnson years - it was quite obvious that someone like Mordaunt was needed, assuming she could rise to the challenge.

    Instead we got Truss who has doubled down on the worst of the clown, continuing the incompetence and retaining the cabinet of numpties, whilst abandoning even those bits of the clown’s agenda that were popular.

    What is remarkable is how predictable, and predicted, this all was (except for poor Leondamus, obvs). Like a slow motion car crash, as Truss rose through the leadership contest, went before the members, and then rushed into number ten to trash everything.

    I've read several commentators emphasising that this car crash is the Tory members' fault. They take a large part of the blame, but at least an equal part must lie at the feet of the 113 MPs who voted for Truss in the last round of MPs' voting.

    What were they thinking?
    1 They might have thought she was genuinely up to the job
    ...in which case, how could we ever trust their judgement again?

    2 They might have thought she was genuinely better than Mordaunt
    ...in which case, how can such a group of MPs be so utterly devoid of leadership talent?

    3 Some might have been Sunak supporters wanting to give Rishi an easier ride
    ...in which case, how could we trust such Machiavellian gamblers in the future? The risks of voting for such a candidate were ridiculously high, as we're now seeing

    I can't see any other possibilities...
    Traditionally a vacant PM’ship is almost always filled by the former CoE or former FS, and the MPs will have wanted someone with a track record in senior office. That was why Mordaunt would have carried some risk, against which you have to set Truss’s obvious personality flaws.

    Johnson is significantly to blame for sowing the seeds of this fiasco, deliberately choosing weak deputies for fear of having competent ones.

    So many of the MPs won’t have got beyond “top tier cabinet member but not Rishi”. Blaming Rishi for Johnson’s demise is ridiculous, given that everyone wanted him gone, but that is how these people seem to think. Rishi was also too sensible for the ERG crew, unwilling to buy into their warped world view.

    But, as you suggest, possibly a few Rishi supporters imagined their membership wouldn’t be foolish enough to vote for Truss, and got her into the final ahead of Mordaunt? A big mistake, up there with those Labour MPs who helped put Corbyn in front of their members, never expecting they would vote for him!

    Had the latter not happened, we may not have got landed with Johnson - certainly not in such a powerful position. So, really, follow the trail and it would seem that Margaret Beckett’s stupidity is to blame for everything that followed.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    Fun fact: this time last year, the Tories had a small (3-5%) but solid lead in the polls!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,150
    Looks like no changes to Zero-#Covid in #China in a hurry. Xi Jinping just said "people's lives come first; we will not waver in our Zero Covid policy".

    https://twitter.com/StephenMcDonell/status/1581471741137760259
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322
    On topic: This header definitely belongs in the No sh*t Sherlock! category

    And now that has been dealt with, cup of tea time :smile:
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    edited October 16
    stjohn said:

    I think no change is often under valued by political betting markets. For there to be change requires a majority of those who have the power to enact change to act to do so. For Truss to be removed from Number Ten requires a majority of Tory MPs to force her out.

    But the majority that want her out want different things. ERGers who want her out want to replace her with a true believer. Sunak supporters who want her out obviously want to replace her with Sunak. Each of these two groups must fear that removing Truss results in a replacement that is even worse from their perspective. So they may well not act to remove her. Nor is it in the interests of the “payroll” to remove her. They want to keep their ministerial positions.

    Hunt’s appointment appears to have gone down well with economic commentators. The markets want a clear, believable plan backed up by numbers that add up. Hunt is offering to provide just that. The markets also want stability and would be spooked, once again, by a Truss defenestration without a pre-agreed convincing replacement “unity” PM. And so far that person has yet to be identified and may not exist.

    So I’m betting on Truss/Hunt being given the chance to have a go at providing a period of realistic, responsible government which seeks to repair some of the damage wrought by the mini-budget and minimise Tory losses at the next General Election.

    Of course there is a significant chance that Truss is forced out soon and certainly she could go before the next General Election. But I think she has a decent chance of hanging on for the reasons argued. Hence my view that Starmer to be next PM at current odds of 7.6 is a great value bet.

    The travesty inflicted upon them may make MPs act right away - when Johnson was finally forced out the MPs all wanted different things, too!

    Remember also that Truss/Hunt is an inherently unstable arrangement - her a prisoner of someone from the other wing of the party.

    I don’t buy the last paragraph.

    There is no way Tory MPs would want to face an election campaign led by loopy Liz - unless she is capable of almost incredible transformation meantime. Hence betting on Starmer for next PM, rather than next but one, is a big gamble. As a trading bet it’s also poor, because if Truss/Hunt do manage to surprise dramatically on the upside, the less nailed on punters will think is a Labour win.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819

    Hard to see how Liz Truss can turn things around. It has still to be proved that Jeremy Hunt can calm the markets, and that he can do so without controversial spending cuts. Then there are eight more PMQs this year. Her best hope may be a rapid fall in gas prices to reduce the cost of the cap freeze and close the budget gap.

    One way to reduce the coat of the energy cap would be a campaign to tell people how to reduce consumption and encourage people to do so.

    I believe even JRM thought that was a good idea but Truss cancelled it
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,670
    Good morning, everyone.

    The Conservatives have taken a step in the right direction but their problem remains. A risk is that Hunt runs things, matters improve economically and politically, and Truss regains undeserved confidence and starts spouting off bright ideas again. They do need to replace her. That also involves not giving the membership a vote.

    Hunt could be the chap. Next election is almost certainly a loss, recent contest indicated he probably won't win that way, but could be a safe pair of hands (Michael Howard a decade and a half later) to steady the ship.

    Does require the stubborn, particularly pro-Boris types, to not have the numbers to rock the boat, though.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    edited October 16
    More evidence of Poland's rapid rearming, after it became clear they wouldn't get the large number of HIMARS they wanted any time soon.

    Poland to buy 300 Chunmoo multiple rocket launchers
    https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=337961
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,646
    IanB2. I agree that “if Truss/ Hunt surprise dramatically on the upside, the less nailed in punters will think is a Labour win”. But such a development would favour my bet. Truss would be less likely to go, which is essential for my bet delivering. So that helps. And yes, Starmer would be less sure to become PM after the next General Election. But he would still be odds on to do so , in my view. My bet is primarily a bet in Truss surviving until the next General Election.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    Fpt
    carnforth said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    carnforth said:

    Nigelb said:

    A dismal failure of government.

    A spokesman from BMW is quoted in the Times this morning saying it will be brought back to the UK when a purpose-built electric-only production line is ready.

    Could be just words, of course, but BMW claim the move is not permanent.

    Meanwhile, MINI cabriolet production is being moved from the Netherlands to Cowley.
    Yeah... when BMW binned off Solihull and Longbridge they promised 100% of Mini production would always be at Cowley.

    I reckon they'll sell Cowley to Great Wall. The IC engine plant at Hams Hall is doomed no matter who owns it.
    I was surprised at the claim that BMW don’t have an electric platform small enough for the mini, so have to use Great Wall’s. Presumably they would want to share a future mini electic platform with the 1 series?
    BMW 1 series length 4319mm
    Mini 3 door 3865mm

    In a small car 450mm or 18 inches is a significant difference so the small mini is a very unique project if you want a standard base to work from (and extend to longer cars)

    The reality is that the BMW 1 series isn’t a VW Up size it’s a Golf

    And of course it’s not permanent as in 2030 or so all European cars will be electric only at which point if Oxford is going to be used it will be building electric cars
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    stjohn said:

    I think no change is often under valued by political betting markets. For there to be change requires a majority of those who have the power to enact change to act to do so. For Truss to be removed from Number Ten requires a majority of Tory MPs to force her out.

    But the majority that want her out want different things. ERGers who want her out want to replace her with a true believer. Sunak supporters who want her out obviously want to replace her with Sunak. Each of these two groups must fear that removing Truss results in a replacement that is even worse from their perspective. So they may well not act to remove her. Nor is it in the interests of the “payroll” to remove her. They want to keep their ministerial positions.

    Hunt’s appointment appears to have gone down well with economic commentators. The markets want a clear, believable plan backed up by numbers that add up. Hunt is offering to provide just that. The markets also want stability and would be spooked, once again, by a Truss defenestration without a pre-agreed convincing replacement “unity” PM. And so far that person has yet to be identified and may not exist.

    So I’m betting on Truss/Hunt being given the chance to have a go at providing a period of realistic, responsible government which seeks to repair some of the damage wrought by the mini-budget and minimise Tory losses at the next General Election.

    Of course there is a significant chance that Truss is forced out soon and certainly she could go before the next General Election. But I think she has a decent chance of hanging on for the reasons argued. Hence my view that Starmer to be next PM at current odds of 7.6 is a great value bet.

    Much depends on whether Truss can move out of the 'rabbit in the headlights' phase. If she continues, it is as PM in name only. But I have a suspicion she is actually temperamentally incapable of performing such a role. How can you, when no-one takes you seriously? Her performance in the press conference was abysmal.
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,646
    I’ve also laid Truss to be PM after the next General Election at around 4.5 covering most of my Starmer stake. So if Truss is forced out before the GE I only lose a bit overall on both bets. If she leads the Tories at the next General Election and Starmer becomes PM after the GE then both bets collect. If she leads the Tories at the next GE and remains as PM after the GE then I’m in trouble. But so would we all be!
  • IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    The public were desperate to draw a line under the scandals and incompetence of the Johnson years - it was quite obvious that someone like Mordaunt was needed, assuming she could rise to the challenge.

    Instead we got Truss who has doubled down on the worst of the clown, continuing the incompetence and retaining the cabinet of numpties, whilst abandoning even those bits of the clown’s agenda that were popular.

    What is remarkable is how predictable, and predicted, this all was (except for poor Leondamus, obvs). Like a slow motion car crash, as Truss rose through the leadership contest, went before the members, and then rushed into number ten to trash everything.

    I've read several commentators emphasising that this car crash is the Tory members' fault. They take a large part of the blame, but at least an equal part must lie at the feet of the 113 MPs who voted for Truss in the last round of MPs' voting.

    What were they thinking?
    1 They might have thought she was genuinely up to the job
    ...in which case, how could we ever trust their judgement again?

    2 They might have thought she was genuinely better than Mordaunt
    ...in which case, how can such a group of MPs be so utterly devoid of leadership talent?

    3 Some might have been Sunak supporters wanting to give Rishi an easier ride
    ...in which case, how could we trust such Machiavellian gamblers in the future? The risks of voting for such a candidate were ridiculously high, as we're now seeing

    I can't see any other possibilities...
    Traditionally a vacant PM’ship is almost always filled by the former CoE or former FS, and the MPs will have wanted someone with a track record in senior office. That was why Mordaunt would have carried some risk, against which you have to set Truss’s obvious personality flaws.

    Johnson is significantly to blame for sowing the seeds of this fiasco, deliberately choosing weak deputies for fear of having competent ones.

    So many of the MPs won’t have got beyond “top tier cabinet member but not Rishi”. Blaming Rishi for Johnson’s demise is ridiculous, given that everyone wanted him gone, but that is how these people seem to think. Rishi was also too sensible for the ERG crew, unwilling to buy into their warped world view.

    But, as you suggest, possibly a few Rishi supporters imagined their membership wouldn’t be foolish enough to vote for Truss, and got her into the final ahead of Mordaunt? A big mistake, up there with those Labour MPs who helped put Corbyn in front of their members, never expecting they would vote for him!

    Had the latter not happened, we may not have got landed with Johnson - certainly not in such a powerful position. So, really, follow the trail and it would seem that Margaret Beckett’s stupidity is to blame for everything that followed.
    Labour mainstream always used to allow/facilitate a hard left candidate in their leadership elections, so blaming Beckett for Corbyn is a tad unfair (though she is partially culpable).

    EdM is far more culpable because of his buy-yourself-a-vote changes to the leadership election rules.

    To be honest this is now a big risk for both main parties. Recent elections in both parties have led to members making disastrous mistakes. Democracy is such a flawed system!!

    Maybe the pre-1964 system of choosing Tory leaders was better... in its defence it arguably only got things seriously wrong once, in installing Alec Douglas-Home in October 1963...

    Blaming Beckett for Truss made me smile, but I can see the chain!!
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204

    Good morning, everyone.

    The Conservatives have taken a step in the right direction but their problem remains. A risk is that Hunt runs things, matters improve economically and politically, and Truss regains undeserved confidence and starts spouting off bright ideas again. They do need to replace her. That also involves not giving the membership a vote.

    Hunt could be the chap. Next election is almost certainly a loss, recent contest indicated he probably won't win that way, but could be a safe pair of hands (Michael Howard a decade and a half later) to steady the ship.

    Does require the stubborn, particularly pro-Boris types, to not have the numbers to rock the boat, though.

    The key thing is to work out what is going to happen next is to do some polling on the views of Conservative members. I think that Wallace is being put forward as a replacement because he is popular with the membership. I don't think they will coronate Hunt or Sunak even though it is objectively the best thing to do because it will be too divisive in the party (both amongst MP's and members).
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    darkage said:

    stjohn said:

    I think no change is often under valued by political betting markets. For there to be change requires a majority of those who have the power to enact change to act to do so. For Truss to be removed from Number Ten requires a majority of Tory MPs to force her out.

    But the majority that want her out want different things. ERGers who want her out want to replace her with a true believer. Sunak supporters who want her out obviously want to replace her with Sunak. Each of these two groups must fear that removing Truss results in a replacement that is even worse from their perspective. So they may well not act to remove her. Nor is it in the interests of the “payroll” to remove her. They want to keep their ministerial positions.

    Hunt’s appointment appears to have gone down well with economic commentators. The markets want a clear, believable plan backed up by numbers that add up. Hunt is offering to provide just that. The markets also want stability and would be spooked, once again, by a Truss defenestration without a pre-agreed convincing replacement “unity” PM. And so far that person has yet to be identified and may not exist.

    So I’m betting on Truss/Hunt being given the chance to have a go at providing a period of realistic, responsible government which seeks to repair some of the damage wrought by the mini-budget and minimise Tory losses at the next General Election.

    Of course there is a significant chance that Truss is forced out soon and certainly she could go before the next General Election. But I think she has a decent chance of hanging on for the reasons argued. Hence my view that Starmer to be next PM at current odds of 7.6 is a great value bet.

    Much depends on whether Truss can move out of the 'rabbit in the headlights' phase. If she continues, it is as PM in name only. But I have a suspicion she is actually temperamentally incapable of performing such a role. How can you, when no-one takes you seriously? Her performance in the press conference was abysmal.
    The Tories have a big problem - a leader who is utterly unsuitable for the job she won but no means of removing her sanely and quickly due to the rules of appointment which make a coronation of a suitable replacement impossible

    And that’s ignoring the “bedding down” rule that gives a new leader 1 year before complaints can be processed
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,927
    Imagine Truss in a GE Leaders Debate.

    Surely nobody can think it would be anything other than a complete car crash.

    Con MPs must know they can't let Truss lead them into the next GE.

    In which case, they need to get rid of her ASAP for two reasons:

    1) To give the new leader maximum time pre GE.

    2) To minimise the adverse impact on the Party inflicted by Truss. The shorter her tenure the less people will remember of it. Ditto the more time between her going and the GE.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,044

    Good morning, everyone.

    The Conservatives have taken a step in the right direction but their problem remains. A risk is that Hunt runs things, matters improve economically and politically, and Truss regains undeserved confidence and starts spouting off bright ideas again. They do need to replace her. That also involves not giving the membership a vote.

    Hunt could be the chap. Next election is almost certainly a loss, recent contest indicated he probably won't win that way, but could be a safe pair of hands (Michael Howard a decade and a half later) to steady the ship.

    Does require the stubborn, particularly pro-Boris types, to not have the numbers to rock the boat, though.

    The LDs in SW Surrey will be annoyed that Hunt is back in government.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
    Nigelb said:

    More evidence of Poland's rapid rearming, after it became clear they wouldn't get the large number of HIMARS they wanted any time soon.

    Poland to buy 300 Chunmoo multiple rocket launchers
    https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=337961

    I'd say the first armed peace after this war will be an Iron Curtain on Russia's border.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,467
    edited October 16


    To be honest this is now a big risk for both main parties. Recent elections in both parties have led to members making disastrous mistakes. Democracy is such a flawed system!!

    The parties found an uncanny valley and buried themselves at the bottom of it. They could improve the process by either making it smaller and more delegated (eg MPs only) or bigger, ie run a huge open primary that brings in a large proportion of the electorate instead of just a few enthusiasts.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 766
    Radio 4 News had a list of potential PMs ranging from Theresa May, Boris Johnson (!!), Rishi Sunak, to Ben Wallace -according to the BBC the only competent Minister in the Cabinet.

    Perhaps Truss' only hope is that the Conservative Party is unable to agree on an alternative PM.
  • maxhmaxh Posts: 148
    FPT
    @MoonRabbit thanks for your last reply, and actually I think you got to the heart of it:

    “I guess it’s a far bigger equation, how good are your assets, how exposed are you to coming commitments like a demographic time bomb. In which instance all countries will be in a different place.”

    This is it, exactly, for me, though I’d also add “and what’s your plan?”

    The basic equation should be: do we have a credible plan that suggests the ROI of any borrowing exceeds the rate at which we are paying interest? If yes, borrow. If no, don’t. Right now, I suspect but don’t know, that the answer is no.

    Part of the reason I don’t know is the lack of any independent (i.e. OBR) oversight. And I think that’s part of why the markets are flouncing.

    I think you’re arguing that any independent oversight would confirm that the answer is no, and you might well be right. But Truss and Kwarteng bear full responsibility for the fact that we don’t know the answer, and that is destabilising.

    There’s one more bit to this for me. Notwithstanding my basic equation above, there are some instances where you need to overspend briefly (the extend your credit card analogy: the car you commute in breaks down, you really have no choice but to fix it because otherwise your ability to earn money will greatly reduce). It is possible to argue that the energy price guarantee is such an instance (not protecting the public from the risk of v high energy prices would cause more severe economic damage than a temporary overspend). I’m arguing that, in cases like this, it could be possible to convince the markets to bear just such a temporary overspend if you have a really credible medium-term plan to pay things back (eg wealth taxes, later retirement, or some of pagan’s more radical cost cutting ideas).

    So I think you’re arguing that there is nothing the govt could have done to make the borrowing for the energy price guarantee credible. I disagree, i think there are things that could have been done (cf McDonnell’s piece recently in the guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/01/corbyn-mcdonnell-crash-the-pound-truss-free-market). The fact they weren’t done is entirely the govt’s fault.

    (BTW I haven’t touched your argument that the energy price guarantee itself is a silly policy, as I just don’t know whether you’re right or wrong)
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    edited October 16
    eek said:

    darkage said:

    stjohn said:

    I think no change is often under valued by political betting markets. For there to be change requires a majority of those who have the power to enact change to act to do so. For Truss to be removed from Number Ten requires a majority of Tory MPs to force her out.

    But the majority that want her out want different things. ERGers who want her out want to replace her with a true believer. Sunak supporters who want her out obviously want to replace her with Sunak. Each of these two groups must fear that removing Truss results in a replacement that is even worse from their perspective. So they may well not act to remove her. Nor is it in the interests of the “payroll” to remove her. They want to keep their ministerial positions.

    Hunt’s appointment appears to have gone down well with economic commentators. The markets want a clear, believable plan backed up by numbers that add up. Hunt is offering to provide just that. The markets also want stability and would be spooked, once again, by a Truss defenestration without a pre-agreed convincing replacement “unity” PM. And so far that person has yet to be identified and may not exist.

    So I’m betting on Truss/Hunt being given the chance to have a go at providing a period of realistic, responsible government which seeks to repair some of the damage wrought by the mini-budget and minimise Tory losses at the next General Election.

    Of course there is a significant chance that Truss is forced out soon and certainly she could go before the next General Election. But I think she has a decent chance of hanging on for the reasons argued. Hence my view that Starmer to be next PM at current odds of 7.6 is a great value bet.

    Much depends on whether Truss can move out of the 'rabbit in the headlights' phase. If she continues, it is as PM in name only. But I have a suspicion she is actually temperamentally incapable of performing such a role. How can you, when no-one takes you seriously? Her performance in the press conference was abysmal.
    The Tories have a big problem - a leader who is utterly unsuitable for the job she won but no means of removing her sanely and quickly due to the rules of appointment which make a coronation of a suitable replacement impossible

    And that’s ignoring the “bedding down” rule that gives a new leader 1 year before complaints can be processed
    Yes , but they could a) change the rules or b) force her to quit.
    I think B is more likely. I don't think she will be able to handle the pressure - no one could. We are rapidly approaching the point where - whenever she emerges in public - she is just met with howls of scorn, laughter and derision.

    Edit - there are lots of stories that are simply devastating for her. Like the one from Kwarteng yesterday that she forced him in to the 45p tax cut etc. And then she sacked him for the consequences of the policy. Without giving any explanation why. The disasters are happening faster than we are able to process or assess them.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,582
    edited October 16
    If she thought about this for more than a second she would have won a landslide at the next election.

    The bad feeling towards Stride, the chairman of the Treasury select committee and a key figure in the Ready for Rishi campaign, resurfaced when the prime minister was appointing Jeremy Hunt as her new chancellor on Friday.

    Truss and her aides had discussed bringing George Osborne back as a “break glass in case of emergency” candidate, an echo of Gordon Brown bringing Peter Mandelson into his cabinet. Sources say Truss contemplated giving Osborne the job “for about a second” before dismissing the idea.

    But asked how she would have found him a parliamentary seat, she replied: “We could have created a vacancy in central Devon” — Stride’s seat since 2010.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/party-boy-rishi-sunak-still-wants-to-be-prime-minister-bf28vq5jn
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
    edited October 16
    Morning all.

    The crucial question for the day - how should Welsh sparkling wine be rebranded?

    Suggestions are "pefriog", "swigod", or "Eferw" (says the BBC). Meaning sparkling, bubbles and effervescent, respectively.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62967258

    It is a very exclusive product - 180k bottles a year only, allegedly.
    https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2021-09/welsh-vineyards-and-tourism-report.pdf

    We now why @Leon ran away to Pembrokeshire in the lockdown.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,912

    IanB2 said:

    The public were desperate to draw a line under the scandals and incompetence of the Johnson years - it was quite obvious that someone like Mordaunt was needed, assuming she could rise to the challenge.

    Instead we got Truss who has doubled down on the worst of the clown, continuing the incompetence and retaining the cabinet of numpties, whilst abandoning even those bits of the clown’s agenda that were popular.

    What is remarkable is how predictable, and predicted, this all was (except for poor Leondamus, obvs). Like a slow motion car crash, as Truss rose through the leadership contest, went before the members, and then rushed into number ten to trash everything.

    I've read several commentators emphasising that this car crash is the Tory members' fault. They take a large part of the blame, but at least an equal part must lie at the feet of the 113 MPs who voted for Truss in the last round of MPs' voting.

    What were they thinking?
    1 They might have thought she was genuinely up to the job
    ...in which case, how could we ever trust their judgement again?

    2 They might have thought she was genuinely better than Mordaunt
    ...in which case, how can such a group of MPs be so utterly devoid of leadership talent?

    3 Some might have been Sunak supporters wanting to give Rishi an easier ride
    ...in which case, how could we trust such Machiavellian gamblers in the future? The risks of voting for such a candidate were ridiculously high, as we're now seeing

    I can't see any other possibilities...
    The behaviour of the MPs, both before and after the election, has been terrible.

    If they couldn’t work with Liz Truss, they shouldn’t have nominated her in the first place. Trashing your own leader, repeatedly and in public, within weeks of them being elected, is really not acceptable behaviour for MPs - doubly so for all those former minsters mouthing off to the broadsheets again today, who should really know better.

    This isn’t a Corbyn situation, where a couple of dozen errant extremists in the Parliamentary party wanted to ‘widen the debate’, this was the result of a choice of two candidates from those nominated.

    Sadly, some of us predicted this during the campaign, with the increasingly hyperbolic language used against Truss by the Sunak supporters, as the campaign progressed.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819
    edited October 16
    darkage said:

    eek said:

    darkage said:

    stjohn said:

    I think no change is often under valued by political betting markets. For there to be change requires a majority of those who have the power to enact change to act to do so. For Truss to be removed from Number Ten requires a majority of Tory MPs to force her out.

    But the majority that want her out want different things. ERGers who want her out want to replace her with a true believer. Sunak supporters who want her out obviously want to replace her with Sunak. Each of these two groups must fear that removing Truss results in a replacement that is even worse from their perspective. So they may well not act to remove her. Nor is it in the interests of the “payroll” to remove her. They want to keep their ministerial positions.

    Hunt’s appointment appears to have gone down well with economic commentators. The markets want a clear, believable plan backed up by numbers that add up. Hunt is offering to provide just that. The markets also want stability and would be spooked, once again, by a Truss defenestration without a pre-agreed convincing replacement “unity” PM. And so far that person has yet to be identified and may not exist.

    So I’m betting on Truss/Hunt being given the chance to have a go at providing a period of realistic, responsible government which seeks to repair some of the damage wrought by the mini-budget and minimise Tory losses at the next General Election.

    Of course there is a significant chance that Truss is forced out soon and certainly she could go before the next General Election. But I think she has a decent chance of hanging on for the reasons argued. Hence my view that Starmer to be next PM at current odds of 7.6 is a great value bet.

    Much depends on whether Truss can move out of the 'rabbit in the headlights' phase. If she continues, it is as PM in name only. But I have a suspicion she is actually temperamentally incapable of performing such a role. How can you, when no-one takes you seriously? Her performance in the press conference was abysmal.
    The Tories have a big problem - a leader who is utterly unsuitable for the job she won but no means of removing her sanely and quickly due to the rules of appointment which make a coronation of a suitable replacement impossible

    And that’s ignoring the “bedding down” rule that gives a new leader 1 year before complaints can be processed
    Yes , but they could a) change the rules or b) force her to quit.
    I think B is more likely. I don't think she will be able to handle the pressure - no one could. We are rapidly approaching the point where - whenever she emerges in public - she is just met with howls of scorn, laughter and derision.

    Edit - there are lots of stories that are simply devastating for her. Like the one from Kwarteng yesterday that she forced him in to the 45p tax cut etc. And then she sacked him for the consequences of the policy. Without giving any explanation why. The disasters are happening faster than we are able to process or assess them.
    So you force Truss to quit
    How do you stop the Tory membership voting for another candidate offering similar policies at the subsequent leadership election.

    Because the Tory party has another fractions that a single party uniting candidate doesn’t exist

    To replace Truss you need to ensure her replacement is appointed unopposed and it’s that more than anything else which is keeping Truss in place
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    edited October 16

    Good morning, everyone.

    The Conservatives have taken a step in the right direction but their problem remains. A risk is that Hunt runs things, matters improve economically and politically, and Truss regains undeserved confidence and starts spouting off bright ideas again. They do need to replace her. That also involves not giving the membership a vote.

    Hunt could be the chap. Next election is almost certainly a loss, recent contest indicated he probably won't win that way, but could be a safe pair of hands (Michael Howard a decade and a half later) to steady the ship.

    Does require the stubborn, particularly pro-Boris types, to not have the numbers to rock the boat, though.

    Hunt could also lead the Tories to extinction. With Farage becoming Leader of the Opposition to PM Starmer in a Canada 1993 scenario.

    If you impose a leader most Tory voters don't want let alone Tory members that is the risk Tory MPs take. Realistically only Wallace would do. Hunt can stay Chancellor but not become leader
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,670
    Mr. HYUFD, how well is Truss polling with Conservative voters from 2019?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    edited October 16

    Mr. HYUFD, how well is Truss polling with Conservative voters from 2019?

    Better than Hunt would be.

    Remainer Hunt's spending cuts and high tax agenda also has zero chance of regaining the Leave voting working class redwall voters Boris won now voting Labour again
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    eek said:

    darkage said:

    eek said:

    darkage said:

    stjohn said:

    I think no change is often under valued by political betting markets. For there to be change requires a majority of those who have the power to enact change to act to do so. For Truss to be removed from Number Ten requires a majority of Tory MPs to force her out.

    But the majority that want her out want different things. ERGers who want her out want to replace her with a true believer. Sunak supporters who want her out obviously want to replace her with Sunak. Each of these two groups must fear that removing Truss results in a replacement that is even worse from their perspective. So they may well not act to remove her. Nor is it in the interests of the “payroll” to remove her. They want to keep their ministerial positions.

    Hunt’s appointment appears to have gone down well with economic commentators. The markets want a clear, believable plan backed up by numbers that add up. Hunt is offering to provide just that. The markets also want stability and would be spooked, once again, by a Truss defenestration without a pre-agreed convincing replacement “unity” PM. And so far that person has yet to be identified and may not exist.

    So I’m betting on Truss/Hunt being given the chance to have a go at providing a period of realistic, responsible government which seeks to repair some of the damage wrought by the mini-budget and minimise Tory losses at the next General Election.

    Of course there is a significant chance that Truss is forced out soon and certainly she could go before the next General Election. But I think she has a decent chance of hanging on for the reasons argued. Hence my view that Starmer to be next PM at current odds of 7.6 is a great value bet.

    Much depends on whether Truss can move out of the 'rabbit in the headlights' phase. If she continues, it is as PM in name only. But I have a suspicion she is actually temperamentally incapable of performing such a role. How can you, when no-one takes you seriously? Her performance in the press conference was abysmal.
    The Tories have a big problem - a leader who is utterly unsuitable for the job she won but no means of removing her sanely and quickly due to the rules of appointment which make a coronation of a suitable replacement impossible

    And that’s ignoring the “bedding down” rule that gives a new leader 1 year before complaints can be processed
    Yes , but they could a) change the rules or b) force her to quit.
    I think B is more likely. I don't think she will be able to handle the pressure - no one could. We are rapidly approaching the point where - whenever she emerges in public - she is just met with howls of scorn, laughter and derision.

    Edit - there are lots of stories that are simply devastating for her. Like the one from Kwarteng yesterday that she forced him in to the 45p tax cut etc. And then she sacked him for the consequences of the policy. Without giving any explanation why. The disasters are happening faster than we are able to process or assess them.
    So you force Truss to quit
    How do you stop the Tory membership voting for another candidate offering similar policies at the subsequent leadership election.

    Because the Tory party has another fractions that a single party uniting candidate doesn’t exist
    My theory is that Wallace is being put forward because he is so popular with the membership.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,912

    Looks like no changes to Zero-#Covid in #China in a hurry. Xi Jinping just said "people's lives come first; we will not waver in our Zero Covid policy".

    https://twitter.com/StephenMcDonell/status/1581471741137760259

    April 16th 2023, is the date of the Chinese Grand Prix in Shanghai.

    That’s their first major international event in three years, and the date by which they need to commit to making it possible for competitors, journalists, and tourists, to visit the place on a temporary basis. F1 have made it clear to the Chinese, that they expect the race fee to be paid, even if there’s no race, and that it will be F1 that determines if the arrangements are acceptable.
  • Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    The public were desperate to draw a line under the scandals and incompetence of the Johnson years - it was quite obvious that someone like Mordaunt was needed, assuming she could rise to the challenge.

    Instead we got Truss who has doubled down on the worst of the clown, continuing the incompetence and retaining the cabinet of numpties, whilst abandoning even those bits of the clown’s agenda that were popular.

    What is remarkable is how predictable, and predicted, this all was (except for poor Leondamus, obvs). Like a slow motion car crash, as Truss rose through the leadership contest, went before the members, and then rushed into number ten to trash everything.

    I've read several commentators emphasising that this car crash is the Tory members' fault. They take a large part of the blame, but at least an equal part must lie at the feet of the 113 MPs who voted for Truss in the last round of MPs' voting.

    What were they thinking?
    1 They might have thought she was genuinely up to the job
    ...in which case, how could we ever trust their judgement again?

    2 They might have thought she was genuinely better than Mordaunt
    ...in which case, how can such a group of MPs be so utterly devoid of leadership talent?

    3 Some might have been Sunak supporters wanting to give Rishi an easier ride
    ...in which case, how could we trust such Machiavellian gamblers in the future? The risks of voting for such a candidate were ridiculously high, as we're now seeing

    I can't see any other possibilities...
    The behaviour of the MPs, both before and after the election, has been terrible.

    If they couldn’t work with Liz Truss, they shouldn’t have nominated her in the first place. Trashing your own leader, repeatedly and in public, within weeks of them being elected, is really not acceptable behaviour for MPs - doubly so for all those former minsters mouthing off to the broadsheets again today, who should really know better.

    This isn’t a Corbyn situation, where a couple of dozen errant extremists in the Parliamentary party wanted to ‘widen the debate’, this was the result of a choice of two candidates from those nominated.

    Sadly, some of us predicted this during the campaign, with the increasingly hyperbolic language used against Truss by the Sunak supporters, as the campaign progressed.
    It's not hyperbole when it turns out to be accurate.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-s-petulant-attempt-to-start-a-run-on-the-pound
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,148
    edited October 16

    Wow. Apols if already discussed, just seen it. Chimes with my assertion the other day that we’re living through Project Fear. Except that this is Jeremy Warner, of the Telegraph, saying it, not some random northern simian schmuck:

    ’Project Fear was right all along’

    Downbeat predictions by the Treasury and others on the economic consequences of leaving the EU, contemptuously dismissed at the time by Brexit campaigners as "Project Fear", have been on a long fuse, but they have turned out to be overwhelmingly correct, and if anything have underestimated both the calamitous loss of international standing and the scale of the damage that six years of policy confusion and ineptitude has imposed on the country.

    …Perhaps I exaggerate, but not since the humiliation of the International Monetary Fund bailout in 1976 have we seen an unravelling quite as spectacular. This too from a Tory Government with a substantial overall majority. It is scarcely believable.

    These are dark days for Tory MPs, who will be acutely aware that loss of reputation for economic competence is electoral poison for their party. As the former Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has already observed, that reputation has been comprehensively trashed by what's just occurred.

    …We'll be paying the consequences in reduced standing and prosperity for years, if not decades, to come.


    You can red the unpaywalled article here: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/10/15/project-fear-right-along/

    The big question is how much is down to Brexit and how much down to the incompetence of the Brexiteers? I actually don't think things are that complicated. There's a lot of psychobabble talked about the markets but they probably want to see two things:

    1) Stop threatening a trade war with our biggest trading partner over Northern Ireland
    2) Have a plan that shows percentage debt to GDP falling in the medium term

    It's not that complicated. Will those measures make up for the costs of leaving the single market and customs union? Probably not and the lack of compensatory benefits to leaving bodes ill for our economic future. But I remain unconvinced by the disaster analysis.
  • Sri Lanka are 88/8 chasing 164 against Namibia in the first match of the T20 world cup.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 15,033
    Icarus said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    The crucial question for the day - how should Welsh sparkling wine be rebranded?

    Suggestions are "pefriog", "swigod", or "Eferw" (says the BBC). Meaning sparkling, bubbles and effervescent, respectively.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62967258

    It is a very exclusive product - 180k bottles a year only, allegedly.
    https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2021-09/welsh-vineyards-and-tourism-report.pdf

    We now why @Leon ran away to Pembrokeshire in the lockdown.

    Surely the obvious one is: Ffizz
    That needs more LLLLLLs :smile:
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204

    If she thought about this for more than a second she would have won a landslide at the next election.

    The bad feeling towards Stride, the chairman of the Treasury select committee and a key figure in the Ready for Rishi campaign, resurfaced when the prime minister was appointing Jeremy Hunt as her new chancellor on Friday.

    Truss and her aides had discussed bringing George Osborne back as a “break glass in case of emergency” candidate, an echo of Gordon Brown bringing Peter Mandelson into his cabinet. Sources say Truss contemplated giving Osborne the job “for about a second” before dismissing the idea.

    But asked how she would have found him a parliamentary seat, she replied: “We could have created a vacancy in central Devon” — Stride’s seat since 2010.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/party-boy-rishi-sunak-still-wants-to-be-prime-minister-bf28vq5jn

    No guarantee of winning the seat, even if it was for Osborne. Voters may not have complied with any plans like that.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    ...
  • Sri Lanka are 88/8 chasing 164 against Namibia in the first match of the T20 world cup.

    There's a player in this match called La Cock....
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,204
    I see that the idiot law project have lost yet another case. I really wonder who keeps giving them money. It's surely also time to look at Stonewall's charitable status.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225

    The big question is how much is down to Brexit and how much down to the incompetence of the Brexiteers?

    Truss is the prime example of the fantasy economics of Brexit taken to extremes.

    You can't wish away economic reality.

    Leaving our closest biggest market crushed our trade.

    Borrowing to fund tax cuts crushed our economy.

    Some day, people who can count will be in charge again.

    Many of the same voters who believed the BoZo bullshit and voted for Brexit believed the Truss bullshit and voted for her.

    They have proven that are not fit to choose again...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461

    Kwasi Kwarteng argued against the Government’s disastrous plan to cut the top 45p rate of tax but was over-ruled by Liz Truss, sources have told The Mail on Sunday.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11319511/Kwasi-Kwarteng-told-PM-45p-tax-policy-sacking-him.html

    Isn't spilling the beans considered bad form for an Old Etonian- particularly on a female-or have standards slipped these days?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    darkage said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    The Conservatives have taken a step in the right direction but their problem remains. A risk is that Hunt runs things, matters improve economically and politically, and Truss regains undeserved confidence and starts spouting off bright ideas again. They do need to replace her. That also involves not giving the membership a vote.

    Hunt could be the chap. Next election is almost certainly a loss, recent contest indicated he probably won't win that way, but could be a safe pair of hands (Michael Howard a decade and a half later) to steady the ship.

    Does require the stubborn, particularly pro-Boris types, to not have the numbers to rock the boat, though.

    The key thing is to work out what is going to happen next is to do some polling on the views of Conservative members. I think that Wallace is being put forward as a replacement because he is popular with the membership. I don't think they will coronate Hunt or Sunak even though it is objectively the best thing to do because it will be too divisive in the party (both amongst MP's and members).
    I don’t know if they will or will not “coronate” Hunk or Sunak, but why don’t we just ask whether they will crown Hunk or Sunak?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620
    edited October 16
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    The public were desperate to draw a line under the scandals and incompetence of the Johnson years - it was quite obvious that someone like Mordaunt was needed, assuming she could rise to the challenge.

    Instead we got Truss who has doubled down on the worst of the clown, continuing the incompetence and retaining the cabinet of numpties, whilst abandoning even those bits of the clown’s agenda that were popular.

    What is remarkable is how predictable, and predicted, this all was (except for poor Leondamus, obvs). Like a slow motion car crash, as Truss rose through the leadership contest, went before the members, and then rushed into number ten to trash everything.

    I've read several commentators emphasising that this car crash is the Tory members' fault. They take a large part of the blame, but at least an equal part must lie at the feet of the 113 MPs who voted for Truss in the last round of MPs' voting.

    What were they thinking?
    1 They might have thought she was genuinely up to the job
    ...in which case, how could we ever trust their judgement again?

    2 They might have thought she was genuinely better than Mordaunt
    ...in which case, how can such a group of MPs be so utterly devoid of leadership talent?

    3 Some might have been Sunak supporters wanting to give Rishi an easier ride
    ...in which case, how could we trust such Machiavellian gamblers in the future? The risks of voting for such a candidate were ridiculously high, as we're now seeing

    I can't see any other possibilities...
    The behaviour of the MPs, both before and after the election, has been terrible.

    If they couldn’t work with Liz Truss, they shouldn’t have nominated her in the first place. Trashing your own leader, repeatedly and in public, within weeks of them being elected, is really not acceptable behaviour for MPs - doubly so for all those former minsters mouthing off to the broadsheets again today, who should really know better.

    This isn’t a Corbyn situation, where a couple of dozen errant extremists in the Parliamentary party wanted to ‘widen the debate’, this was the result of a choice of two candidates from those nominated.

    Sadly, some of us predicted this during the campaign, with the increasingly hyperbolic language used against Truss by the Sunak supporters, as the campaign progressed.
    The problem is not the MP critics, many of whom opposed her getting into the final two as much as they could. The problem is she is completely incompetent and out of her depth, coupled with a rigid ideology not compatible with either reality or winning an election.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    edited October 16
    stjohn said:

    IanB2. I agree that “if Truss/ Hunt surprise dramatically on the upside, the less nailed in punters will think is a Labour win”. But such a development would favour my bet. Truss would be less likely to go, which is essential for my bet delivering. So that helps. And yes, Starmer would be less sure to become PM after the next General Election. But he would still be odds on to do so , in my view. My bet is primarily a bet in Truss surviving until the next General Election.

    MPs know now what a dreadful performer she is (as they should have known before). And how policy-impulsive she can be.

    Do you think they have forgotten 2017 already?

    The one bit of your logic that works is that, if the Tories allow her to lead the campaign, Starmer will win.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,148

    Sri Lanka are 88/8 chasing 164 against Namibia in the first match of the T20 world cup.

    There's a player in this match called La Cock....
    Surely it should be Le Cock?

    'Simon Le Bon. Or as they say in France Simon the good.'
  • Sri Lanka are 88/8 chasing 164 against Namibia in the first match of the T20 world cup.

    There's a player in this match called La Cock....
    I'm such a child.


  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176
    Roger said:

    Kwasi Kwarteng argued against the Government’s disastrous plan to cut the top 45p rate of tax but was over-ruled by Liz Truss, sources have told The Mail on Sunday.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11319511/Kwasi-Kwarteng-told-PM-45p-tax-policy-sacking-him.html

    Isn't spilling the beans considered bad form for an Old Etonian- particularly on a female-or have standards slipped these days?
    I think Kwasi will subtly try and bring her down now too.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620

    Roger said:

    Kwasi Kwarteng argued against the Government’s disastrous plan to cut the top 45p rate of tax but was over-ruled by Liz Truss, sources have told The Mail on Sunday.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11319511/Kwasi-Kwarteng-told-PM-45p-tax-policy-sacking-him.html

    Isn't spilling the beans considered bad form for an Old Etonian- particularly on a female-or have standards slipped these days?
    I think Kwasi will subtly try and bring her down now too.
    I don't think particularly subtly. She had few friends and supporters and now has one less...
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    The crucial question for the day - how should Welsh sparkling wine be rebranded?

    Suggestions are "pefriog", "swigod", or "Eferw" (says the BBC). Meaning sparkling, bubbles and effervescent, respectively.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62967258

    It is a very exclusive product - 180k bottles a year only, allegedly.
    https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2021-09/welsh-vineyards-and-tourism-report.pdf

    We now why @Leon ran away to Pembrokeshire in the lockdown.

    Call it champagne. That's what Spain did till it joined the EEC and had to rebrand as cava, so here's an obvious brexit dividend.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    stjohn said:

    I’ve also laid Truss to be PM after the next General Election at around 4.5 covering most of my Starmer stake. So if Truss is forced out before the GE I only lose a bit overall on both bets. If she leads the Tories at the next General Election and Starmer becomes PM after the GE then both bets collect. If she leads the Tories at the next GE and remains as PM after the GE then I’m in trouble. But so would we all be!

    Now that’s a decent bet, but not on offer from BFE yet.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,670
    Hunt out to 5.4/5.8 to be next PM on Smarkets. Was layable at 4 the other day, which seemed far too short (also, I have a lump of green on him succeeding Truss as Con leader).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    edited October 16

    If she thought about this for more than a second she would have won a landslide at the next election.

    The bad feeling towards Stride, the chairman of the Treasury select committee and a key figure in the Ready for Rishi campaign, resurfaced when the prime minister was appointing Jeremy Hunt as her new chancellor on Friday.

    Truss and her aides had discussed bringing George Osborne back as a “break glass in case of emergency” candidate, an echo of Gordon Brown bringing Peter Mandelson into his cabinet. Sources say Truss contemplated giving Osborne the job “for about a second” before dismissing the idea.

    But asked how she would have found him a parliamentary seat, she replied: “We could have created a vacancy in central Devon” — Stride’s seat since 2010.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/party-boy-rishi-sunak-still-wants-to-be-prime-minister-bf28vq5jn

    What had she in mind … assassination ?

    The combination of hubris and stupidity in that suggestion is typical of her premiership.

    And Stride is one of the more inoffensive MPs the Tories have. If he’s a hate figure for you, then the problem is with you.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286

    Sri Lanka are 88/8 chasing 164 against Namibia in the first match of the T20 world cup.

    There's a player in this match called La Cock....
    Surely it should be Le Cock?

    'Simon Le Bon. Or as they say in France Simon the good.'
    LA, not La, according to his shirt.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    If she thought about this for more than a second she would have won a landslide at the next election.

    The bad feeling towards Stride, the chairman of the Treasury select committee and a key figure in the Ready for Rishi campaign, resurfaced when the prime minister was appointing Jeremy Hunt as her new chancellor on Friday.

    Truss and her aides had discussed bringing George Osborne back as a “break glass in case of emergency” candidate, an echo of Gordon Brown bringing Peter Mandelson into his cabinet. Sources say Truss contemplated giving Osborne the job “for about a second” before dismissing the idea.

    But asked how she would have found him a parliamentary seat, she replied: “We could have created a vacancy in central Devon” — Stride’s seat since 2010.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/party-boy-rishi-sunak-still-wants-to-be-prime-minister-bf28vq5jn

    Hunt and osborne go back a long way mind, e.g.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/may/31/george-osborne-bskyb-jeremy-hunt

    You can't create vacancies by withdrawing the whip you would have to bump him off or frame him for a crime.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176

    Hunt out to 5.4/5.8 to be next PM on Smarkets. Was layable at 4 the other day, which seemed far too short (also, I have a lump of green on him succeeding Truss as Con leader).

    He is too short. Given his polling amongst MPs last time and popularity amongst the members he's become that short as he's "PM in everything but name", but will never acquire that name.

    I'm laying him and Sunak, at current prices. If Boris dips down below 15/1 again I'll lay him too.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    Roger said:

    Kwasi Kwarteng argued against the Government’s disastrous plan to cut the top 45p rate of tax but was over-ruled by Liz Truss, sources have told The Mail on Sunday.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11319511/Kwasi-Kwarteng-told-PM-45p-tax-policy-sacking-him.html

    Isn't spilling the beans considered bad form for an Old Etonian- particularly on a female-or have standards slipped these days?
    Putting the record straight ?
  • MaxPB said:

    If she thought about this for more than a second she would have won a landslide at the next election.

    The bad feeling towards Stride, the chairman of the Treasury select committee and a key figure in the Ready for Rishi campaign, resurfaced when the prime minister was appointing Jeremy Hunt as her new chancellor on Friday.

    Truss and her aides had discussed bringing George Osborne back as a “break glass in case of emergency” candidate, an echo of Gordon Brown bringing Peter Mandelson into his cabinet. Sources say Truss contemplated giving Osborne the job “for about a second” before dismissing the idea.

    But asked how she would have found him a parliamentary seat, she replied: “We could have created a vacancy in central Devon” — Stride’s seat since 2010.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/party-boy-rishi-sunak-still-wants-to-be-prime-minister-bf28vq5jn

    No guarantee of winning the seat, even if it was for Osborne. Voters may not have complied with any plans like that.
    Why would he need a seat? She could have installed him as Chancellor, got him into the Lords at some point soon, and have a deputy in the Commons.

    But I doubt Georgie boy would have accepted. His reputation is decent, why trash it being associated with *that*
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,670
    Mr. Royale, as an uncontested successor, it could be Hunt. But there's no chance if it goes to the members.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,876
    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    The crucial question for the day - how should Welsh sparkling wine be rebranded?

    Suggestions are "pefriog", "swigod", or "Eferw" (says the BBC). Meaning sparkling, bubbles and effervescent, respectively.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62967258

    It is a very exclusive product - 180k bottles a year only, allegedly.
    https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2021-09/welsh-vineyards-and-tourism-report.pdf

    We now why @Leon ran away to Pembrokeshire in the lockdown.

    I never saw him......
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    If she thought about this for more than a second she would have won a landslide at the next election.

    The bad feeling towards Stride, the chairman of the Treasury select committee and a key figure in the Ready for Rishi campaign, resurfaced when the prime minister was appointing Jeremy Hunt as her new chancellor on Friday.

    Truss and her aides had discussed bringing George Osborne back as a “break glass in case of emergency” candidate, an echo of Gordon Brown bringing Peter Mandelson into his cabinet. Sources say Truss contemplated giving Osborne the job “for about a second” before dismissing the idea.

    But asked how she would have found him a parliamentary seat, she replied: “We could have created a vacancy in central Devon” — Stride’s seat since 2010.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/party-boy-rishi-sunak-still-wants-to-be-prime-minister-bf28vq5jn

    No guarantee of winning the seat, even if it was for Osborne. Voters may not have complied with any plans like that.
    Why would he need a seat? She could have installed him as Chancellor, got him into the Lords at some point soon, and have a deputy in the Commons.

    But I doubt Georgie boy would have accepted. His reputation is decent, why trash it being associated with *that*
    But it goes to show how deluded the Truss team are if they thought they could get Stride to resign his seat and then win the subsequent by election.
    Arrogance and stupidity in equal measures.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,735
    Liverpool 2005 was a fantastic comeback but Truss's position is more akin to being 10-0 down at half time.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322
    Scott_xP said:

    The big question is how much is down to Brexit and how much down to the incompetence of the Brexiteers?

    Truss is the prime example of the fantasy economics of Brexit taken to extremes.

    You can't wish away economic reality.

    Leaving our closest biggest market crushed our trade.

    Borrowing to fund tax cuts crushed our economy.

    Some day, people who can count will be in charge again.

    Many of the same voters who believed the BoZo bullshit and voted for Brexit believed the Truss bullshit and voted for her.

    They have proven that are not fit to choose again...
    Perhaps wiping out the Bluekippers will be the one tangible Brexit Benefit.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,670
    Mr. B, I'd argue the more telling aspect of Truss' reported comment on Stride is her certainty on an outcome with no idea of the actual mechanism of achieving said result.

    She knows what she wants to happen and has confidence it will but the actual process of getting from A to B is beyond her. She's a bit ruby slippers, but the real world requires a car.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,643
    edited October 16
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    If she thought about this for more than a second she would have won a landslide at the next election.

    The bad feeling towards Stride, the chairman of the Treasury select committee and a key figure in the Ready for Rishi campaign, resurfaced when the prime minister was appointing Jeremy Hunt as her new chancellor on Friday.

    Truss and her aides had discussed bringing George Osborne back as a “break glass in case of emergency” candidate, an echo of Gordon Brown bringing Peter Mandelson into his cabinet. Sources say Truss contemplated giving Osborne the job “for about a second” before dismissing the idea.

    But asked how she would have found him a parliamentary seat, she replied: “We could have created a vacancy in central Devon” — Stride’s seat since 2010.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/party-boy-rishi-sunak-still-wants-to-be-prime-minister-bf28vq5jn

    No guarantee of winning the seat, even if it was for Osborne. Voters may not have complied with any plans like that.
    Why would he need a seat? She could have installed him as Chancellor, got him into the Lords at some point soon, and have a deputy in the Commons.

    But I doubt Georgie boy would have accepted. His reputation is decent, why trash it being associated with *that*
    But it goes to show how deluded the Truss team are if they thought they could get Stride to resign his seat and then win the subsequent by election.
    Ain't nothin' gonna break Mel Stride
    Nobody's gonna slow me down, oh-no
    I got to keep on movin'
    Ain't nothin' gonna break Mel Stride
    I'm running and I won't touch ground
    Oh-no, I got to keep on movin'
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,735
    Ishmael_Z said:
    Agreed. Could do a lot better. Just save the money and let Truss do the attack ads for them.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322

    Wow. Apols if already discussed, just seen it. Chimes with my assertion the other day that we’re living through Project Fear. Except that this is Jeremy Warner, of the Telegraph, saying it, not some random northern simian schmuck:

    ’Project Fear was right all along’

    Downbeat predictions by the Treasury and others on the economic consequences of leaving the EU, contemptuously dismissed at the time by Brexit campaigners as "Project Fear", have been on a long fuse, but they have turned out to be overwhelmingly correct, and if anything have underestimated both the calamitous loss of international standing and the scale of the damage that six years of policy confusion and ineptitude has imposed on the country.

    …Perhaps I exaggerate, but not since the humiliation of the International Monetary Fund bailout in 1976 have we seen an unravelling quite as spectacular. This too from a Tory Government with a substantial overall majority. It is scarcely believable.

    These are dark days for Tory MPs, who will be acutely aware that loss of reputation for economic competence is electoral poison for their party. As the former Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has already observed, that reputation has been comprehensively trashed by what's just occurred.

    …We'll be paying the consequences in reduced standing and prosperity for years, if not decades, to come.


    You can red the unpaywalled article here: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/10/15/project-fear-right-along/

    The big question is how much is down to Brexit and how much down to the incompetence of the Brexiteers? ....
    Like entangled quantum particles, one affects the other. Brexit was an incompetent project delivered by incompetent politicians. It was never going to end well
  • It seems like pretty much everyone agrees that she has to go and go soon. The question is who replaces her and is that person viable.

    Here's what I think happens. Another day with a deluge of shit. We have Sunday politics programmes and MPs being told back in their constituencies just how grave the situation is.

    Tomorrow, Mrs Brady comes back to work with that big grin of his, and the avalanche of no confidence letters and MPs telling him she has to go make it clear that it's *over*.

    There appears to be two camps - Sunak / Mordaunt and Ben Wallace. Suspect that "Brady is handing the PM the pearl-handed revolver" will very quickly merge the two together. Sunak as PM. Mordaunt Home Secretary, Wallace Foreign Secretary and Hunt Chancellor running the country as a Quad.

    Done. Let the remaining lunatics complain from the back benches. FGS just get on with it. Before she has to soil herself at another PMQs
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Sri Lanka are 88/8 chasing 164 against Namibia in the first match of the T20 world cup.

    There's a player in this match called La Cock....
    I'm such a child.


    A shame we won't see him in a partnership with de Kock.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855

    Looks like no changes to Zero-#Covid in #China in a hurry. Xi Jinping just said "people's lives come first; we will not waver in our Zero Covid policy".

    https://twitter.com/StephenMcDonell/status/1581471741137760259

    Coming from the man who launched a genocide in Xinjiang, that's a truly ludicrous and indeed nauseating statement.

    It would be nice to think the National People's Congress will tell him to do one, but they won't because they're a bunch of corrupt onwards.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,918
    HYUFD said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    The Conservatives have taken a step in the right direction but their problem remains. A risk is that Hunt runs things, matters improve economically and politically, and Truss regains undeserved confidence and starts spouting off bright ideas again. They do need to replace her. That also involves not giving the membership a vote.

    Hunt could be the chap. Next election is almost certainly a loss, recent contest indicated he probably won't win that way, but could be a safe pair of hands (Michael Howard a decade and a half later) to steady the ship.

    Does require the stubborn, particularly pro-Boris types, to not have the numbers to rock the boat, though.

    Hunt could also lead the Tories to extinction. With Farage becoming Leader of the Opposition to PM Starmer in a Canada 1993 scenario.

    If you impose a leader most Tory voters don't want let alone Tory members that is the risk Tory MPs take. Realistically only Wallace would do. Hunt can stay Chancellor but not become leader
    Even if you are right and there was a Tory wipe out, Farage would not be LOTO under FPTP. That would be the SNP or LDs.

    However as I said yesterday I think you are wrong re Hunt. Yes he would lose the wingnuts to the right, but he is sane and that attracts moderate non political voters.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    The public were desperate to draw a line under the scandals and incompetence of the Johnson years - it was quite obvious that someone like Mordaunt was needed, assuming she could rise to the challenge.

    Instead we got Truss who has doubled down on the worst of the clown, continuing the incompetence and retaining the cabinet of numpties, whilst abandoning even those bits of the clown’s agenda that were popular.

    What is remarkable is how predictable, and predicted, this all was (except for poor Leondamus, obvs). Like a slow motion car crash, as Truss rose through the leadership contest, went before the members, and then rushed into number ten to trash everything.

    I've read several commentators emphasising that this car crash is the Tory members' fault. They take a large part of the blame, but at least an equal part must lie at the feet of the 113 MPs who voted for Truss in the last round of MPs' voting.

    What were they thinking?
    1 They might have thought she was genuinely up to the job
    ...in which case, how could we ever trust their judgement again?

    2 They might have thought she was genuinely better than Mordaunt
    ...in which case, how can such a group of MPs be so utterly devoid of leadership talent?

    3 Some might have been Sunak supporters wanting to give Rishi an easier ride
    ...in which case, how could we trust such Machiavellian gamblers in the future? The risks of voting for such a candidate were ridiculously high, as we're now seeing

    I can't see any other possibilities...
    The behaviour of the MPs, both before and after the election, has been terrible.

    If they couldn’t work with Liz Truss, they shouldn’t have nominated her in the first place. Trashing your own leader, repeatedly and in public, within weeks of them being elected, is really not acceptable behaviour for MPs - doubly so for all those former minsters mouthing off to the broadsheets again today, who should really know better.

    This isn’t a Corbyn situation, where a couple of dozen errant extremists in the Parliamentary party wanted to ‘widen the debate’, this was the result of a choice of two candidates from those nominated.

    Sadly, some of us predicted this during the campaign, with the increasingly hyperbolic language used against Truss by the Sunak supporters, as the campaign progressed.
    You could have saved yourself some typing, and just put "Liz Truss is innocent!" and allowed the rest of us to laugh.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    edited October 16
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    The Conservatives have taken a step in the right direction but their problem remains. A risk is that Hunt runs things, matters improve economically and politically, and Truss regains undeserved confidence and starts spouting off bright ideas again. They do need to replace her. That also involves not giving the membership a vote.

    Hunt could be the chap. Next election is almost certainly a loss, recent contest indicated he probably won't win that way, but could be a safe pair of hands (Michael Howard a decade and a half later) to steady the ship.

    Does require the stubborn, particularly pro-Boris types, to not have the numbers to rock the boat, though.

    Hunt could also lead the Tories to extinction. With Farage becoming Leader of the Opposition to PM Starmer in a Canada 1993 scenario.

    If you impose a leader most Tory voters don't want let alone Tory members that is the risk Tory MPs take. Realistically only Wallace would do. Hunt can stay Chancellor but not become leader
    Even if you are right and there was a Tory wipe out, Farage would not be LOTO under FPTP. That would be the SNP or LDs.

    However as I said yesterday I think you are wrong re Hunt. Yes he would lose the wingnuts to the right, but he is sane and that attracts moderate non political voters.
    Not necessarily, if Farage's party got 25 to 30% of the vote and Hunt's party say 10% then Farage's party would win 150 to 200 seats.

    Farage would then be Leader of the Opposition
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,735
    edited October 16

    Kwasi Kwarteng argued against the Government’s disastrous plan to cut the top 45p rate of tax but was over-ruled by Liz Truss, sources have told The Mail on Sunday.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11319511/Kwasi-Kwarteng-told-PM-45p-tax-policy-sacking-him.html

    So why didn't he just come out and say so? What possible benefit to him, the party or the country does loyalty to Truss have now?

    Personally I don't believe it. I suspect they both thought the 45p cut would send a 'good sign'. Which shows just how out of touch they are.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,968
    Scott_xP said:

    The big question is how much is down to Brexit and how much down to the incompetence of the Brexiteers?

    Truss is the prime example of the fantasy economics of Brexit taken to extremes.

    You can't wish away economic reality.

    Leaving our closest biggest market crushed our trade.

    Borrowing to fund tax cuts crushed our economy.

    Some day, people who can count will be in charge again.

    Many of the same voters who believed the BoZo bullshit and voted for Brexit believed the Truss bullshit and voted for her.

    They have proven that are not fit to choose again...
    Within the EU our economic difficulties would be exactly the same as outside the EU.

    We would still have a trade deficit, still have a growth rate that is half what it was from 1950-1999, still be coping with the fallout from Covid and Ukraine.

    And, politically, Conservative MPs would still be behaving like Conservative MP's.
  • Ishmael_Z said:
    Agreed. Could do a lot better. Just save the money and let Truss do the attack ads for them.
    Not very good, but they don't have to be. Labour only have to be sort of ok in everything they do and that will be more than enough.

    Starmer is particularly good as being sort of ok.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    eek said:

    darkage said:

    eek said:

    darkage said:

    stjohn said:

    I think no change is often under valued by political betting markets. For there to be change requires a majority of those who have the power to enact change to act to do so. For Truss to be removed from Number Ten requires a majority of Tory MPs to force her out.

    But the majority that want her out want different things. ERGers who want her out want to replace her with a true believer. Sunak supporters who want her out obviously want to replace her with Sunak. Each of these two groups must fear that removing Truss results in a replacement that is even worse from their perspective. So they may well not act to remove her. Nor is it in the interests of the “payroll” to remove her. They want to keep their ministerial positions.

    Hunt’s appointment appears to have gone down well with economic commentators. The markets want a clear, believable plan backed up by numbers that add up. Hunt is offering to provide just that. The markets also want stability and would be spooked, once again, by a Truss defenestration without a pre-agreed convincing replacement “unity” PM. And so far that person has yet to be identified and may not exist.

    So I’m betting on Truss/Hunt being given the chance to have a go at providing a period of realistic, responsible government which seeks to repair some of the damage wrought by the mini-budget and minimise Tory losses at the next General Election.

    Of course there is a significant chance that Truss is forced out soon and certainly she could go before the next General Election. But I think she has a decent chance of hanging on for the reasons argued. Hence my view that Starmer to be next PM at current odds of 7.6 is a great value bet.

    Much depends on whether Truss can move out of the 'rabbit in the headlights' phase. If she continues, it is as PM in name only. But I have a suspicion she is actually temperamentally incapable of performing such a role. How can you, when no-one takes you seriously? Her performance in the press conference was abysmal.
    The Tories have a big problem - a leader who is utterly unsuitable for the job she won but no means of removing her sanely and quickly due to the rules of appointment which make a coronation of a suitable replacement impossible

    And that’s ignoring the “bedding down” rule that gives a new leader 1 year before complaints can be processed
    Yes , but they could a) change the rules or b) force her to quit.
    I think B is more likely. I don't think she will be able to handle the pressure - no one could. We are rapidly approaching the point where - whenever she emerges in public - she is just met with howls of scorn, laughter and derision.

    Edit - there are lots of stories that are simply devastating for her. Like the one from Kwarteng yesterday that she forced him in to the 45p tax cut etc. And then she sacked him for the consequences of the policy. Without giving any explanation why. The disasters are happening faster than we are able to process or assess them.
    So you force Truss to quit
    How do you stop the Tory membership voting for another candidate offering similar policies at the subsequent leadership election.

    Because the Tory party has another fractions that a single party uniting candidate doesn’t exist

    To replace Truss you need to ensure her replacement is appointed unopposed and it’s that more than anything else which is keeping Truss in place
    Let Truss keep sinking for a month or two, hope that Hunt as the only grown-up in the room establishes his credentials, stabilises the markets, and the party recovers a bit in the polls - do you really think the inevitable complaints from the nutters are going to get much traction?

    Alternatively, let Mordaunt have a go - everyone knows that had she made the final round she'd have won it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148

    HYUFD said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    The Conservatives have taken a step in the right direction but their problem remains. A risk is that Hunt runs things, matters improve economically and politically, and Truss regains undeserved confidence and starts spouting off bright ideas again. They do need to replace her. That also involves not giving the membership a vote.

    Hunt could be the chap. Next election is almost certainly a loss, recent contest indicated he probably won't win that way, but could be a safe pair of hands (Michael Howard a decade and a half later) to steady the ship.

    Does require the stubborn, particularly pro-Boris types, to not have the numbers to rock the boat, though.

    Hunt could also lead the Tories to extinction. With Farage becoming Leader of the Opposition to PM Starmer in a Canada 1993 scenario.

    If you impose a leader most Tory voters don't want let alone Tory members that is the risk Tory MPs take. Realistically only Wallace would do. Hunt can stay Chancellor but not become leader
    Garage - and Brexit - is a busted flush. Yes there are still some utterly obsessed people out there, but most of the country has moved on, a chunk of Brexit voters have died and a chunk of the red wall have noticed that the opposite of what they believed they would get would happen.

    So let's play your scenario. The return of Farage. Leading which party - is he even a REFUK member still? Let's further assume that he is. It's a party with no reach. With no agenda (I imagine the "reform" they want has just been torpedoed by Truss). And a "none of that matters" approach to everything that matters to voters instead focusing on migrants and woke.

    Nope. Farage is not a threat.
    Hunt is also raising tax and cutting spending, Farage remains a tax cutter
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,755
    Ishmael_Z said:

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    The crucial question for the day - how should Welsh sparkling wine be rebranded?

    Suggestions are "pefriog", "swigod", or "Eferw" (says the BBC). Meaning sparkling, bubbles and effervescent, respectively.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62967258

    It is a very exclusive product - 180k bottles a year only, allegedly.
    https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2021-09/welsh-vineyards-and-tourism-report.pdf

    We now why @Leon ran away to Pembrokeshire in the lockdown.

    Call it champagne. That's what Spain did till it joined the EEC and had to rebrand as cava, so here's an obvious brexit dividend.
    Doesn’t work like that these days, and protected designations are one of the areas covered by the Brexit agreement.

    Besides which calling things that aren’t champagne “champagne” has the perverse effect of making them seem cheap rip offs because of the association with such. See Russian “champagne” or Australian (or pea pod) “burgundy”.

    Wales has a good opportunity here because the ESW name is now firmly established for English fizz and won’t be shifted now but is a bit of a mouthful. Whereas Wales still has the opportunity to differentiate.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, how well is Truss polling with Conservative voters from 2019?

    Better than Hunt would be.

    Remainer Hunt's spending cuts and high tax agenda also has zero chance of regaining the Leave voting working class redwall voters Boris won now voting Labour again
    The same chance as anyone else (including the lying clown himself, as polls at the time already demonstrated), then?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,620

    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    The crucial question for the day - how should Welsh sparkling wine be rebranded?

    Suggestions are "pefriog", "swigod", or "Eferw" (says the BBC). Meaning sparkling, bubbles and effervescent, respectively.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62967258

    It is a very exclusive product - 180k bottles a year only, allegedly.
    https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2021-09/welsh-vineyards-and-tourism-report.pdf

    We now why @Leon ran away to Pembrokeshire in the lockdown.

    I never saw him......
    I think this was him, so difficult to recognise.



    His opinion on the dangers of lockdown seem to have altered somewhat since.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,968
    Quite O/T, but for my dissertation, I've just been reading up about the treatment meted out by Spanish guerillas on the afranchesados (pro-French Spaniards). It's one of those things that I wish I had not read.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322
    Nigelb said:

    Another addition to the list of ideas which are not going to help.

    The influential Tory MP, Robert Halfon, said that the prime minister needs to hold a ‘fireside chat’ with the British people, who he said are frightened and dismayed..

    Mr Halfon is either playing a Machiavellian game or is not that bright himself.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    The Conservatives have taken a step in the right direction but their problem remains. A risk is that Hunt runs things, matters improve economically and politically, and Truss regains undeserved confidence and starts spouting off bright ideas again. They do need to replace her. That also involves not giving the membership a vote.

    Hunt could be the chap. Next election is almost certainly a loss, recent contest indicated he probably won't win that way, but could be a safe pair of hands (Michael Howard a decade and a half later) to steady the ship.

    Does require the stubborn, particularly pro-Boris types, to not have the numbers to rock the boat, though.

    Hunt could also lead the Tories to extinction. With Farage becoming Leader of the Opposition to PM Starmer in a Canada 1993 scenario.

    If you impose a leader most Tory voters don't want let alone Tory members that is the risk Tory MPs take. Realistically only Wallace would do. Hunt can stay Chancellor but not become leader
    Even if you are right and there was a Tory wipe out, Farage would not be LOTO under FPTP. That would be the SNP or LDs.

    However as I said yesterday I think you are wrong re Hunt. Yes he would lose the wingnuts to the right, but he is sane and that attracts moderate non political voters.
    Not necessarily, if Farage's party got 25 to 30% of the vote and Hunt's party say 10% them Farage's party would win 150 to 200 seats.

    Farage would then be Leader of the Opposition
    You do love the word “if”. How is Farage going to get 25-30% of the vote against Hunt’s 10%? The Conservatives are currently hovering at the bottom end of that range with the same policies you expect from Farage. How can Farage, without the momentum of lifelong Conservative voters sticking with the party, with no experience of government, with few plausible candidates to be MPs, match that?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 105,148
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, how well is Truss polling with Conservative voters from 2019?

    Better than Hunt would be.

    Remainer Hunt's spending cuts and high tax agenda also has zero chance of regaining the Leave voting working class redwall voters Boris won now voting Labour again
    The same chance as anyone else (including the lying clown himself, as polls at the time already demonstrated), then?
    The Labour lead was half what it is now under Boris
This discussion has been closed.