Howdy, Stranger!

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

Blow for Truss as Rishi becomes the members’ favourite – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 20 in General
imageBlow for Truss as Rishi becomes the members’ favourite – politicalbetting.com

In a new Tory members poll reported by the Telegraph Sunak is beating Truss by 60-40% amongst those of the 500 Tory members polled who had a view.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • WillGWillG Posts: 592
    This should be considered treason:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63293582

    I hope parliament acts immediately.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,367
    edited October 18
    WillG said:

    This should be considered treason:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63293582

    I hope parliament acts immediately.

    When I was unemployed, the Job Centre had adverts for combat instructors for the Saudi air force. Is this greatly different?

    ETA tbh my first reaction was similar to yours, that this is deplorable.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,467
    edited October 18
    Wow, they *really* don't like Sunak, do they?

    I wonder how he'd poll against one of the people the parliamentary Truss backers would run against him.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,367
    There is a new edition of The Rest Is Politics (Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart) overnight with a lot of apparent inside information on Truss's woes but the reason I mention it is they've added another night to their sold-out live gig, for anyone who tried to get tickets.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,367

    Wow, they *really* don't like Sunak, do they?

    I wonder how he'd poll against one of the people the parliamentary Truss backers would run against him.

    There are no Truss backers any more. We saw amongst the planted soft questions to Mordaunt and Hunt yesterday that former-Remainer Truss has now lost the Singapore ultras like John Redwood. Truss's last hope is that despite not backing her, MPs remain split among other factions.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,367
    Betfair suggests Ben Wallace is no longer a runner; there is nothing on the lay side. As a general observation, the Betfair market is quite thin and if you fancy a cheeky tenner on the next Prime Minister, the books might well have better prices.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808
    edited October 18

    Betfair suggests Ben Wallace is no longer a runner; there is nothing on the lay side. As a general observation, the Betfair market is quite thin and if you fancy a cheeky tenner on the next Prime Minister, the books might well have better prices.

    He ruled himself out yesterday. Credit to the man for recognising his limitations; he’s guaranteed respect and an important job in the cabinet.

    The ERG has clearly given up on Truss; I expect they are readying to push for Badenoch or Braverman if there’s a move to install Hunt or Mordaunt.

    If they had any sense (yes, well…) they’d get behind Mordaunt, as the last Leaver with any credibility (Rishi is a leave, of course, but somehow not leaver enough)
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,467

    Wow, they *really* don't like Sunak, do they?

    I wonder how he'd poll against one of the people the parliamentary Truss backers would run against him.

    There are no Truss backers any more. We saw amongst the planted soft questions to Mordaunt and Hunt yesterday that former-Remainer Truss has now lost the Singapore ultras like John Redwood. Truss's last hope is that despite not backing her, MPs remain split among other factions.
    Sorry, I meant the MPs who backed Truss before.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    WillG said:

    This should be considered treason:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63293582

    I hope parliament acts immediately.

    No doubt it's not confined to British pilots.

    Those being complacent about the west's military superiority ("all their weapons are basically similar to Russia's") are much misguided, IMO.
    China has an economic capacity, and electronics industry, that Putin could only dream of.

    And, as this evidences, they are considerably more organised in their military buildup.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    IanB2 said:

    Betfair suggests Ben Wallace is no longer a runner; there is nothing on the lay side. As a general observation, the Betfair market is quite thin and if you fancy a cheeky tenner on the next Prime Minister, the books might well have better prices.

    He ruled himself out yesterday. Credit to the man for recognising his limitations; he’s guaranteed respect and an important job in the cabinet.

    The ERG has clearly given up on Truss...
    Not entirely.
    Baker was doing the media rounds yesterday arguing that she must stay in post.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808
    Nigelb said:

    IanB2 said:

    Betfair suggests Ben Wallace is no longer a runner; there is nothing on the lay side. As a general observation, the Betfair market is quite thin and if you fancy a cheeky tenner on the next Prime Minister, the books might well have better prices.

    He ruled himself out yesterday. Credit to the man for recognising his limitations; he’s guaranteed respect and an important job in the cabinet.

    The ERG has clearly given up on Truss...
    Not entirely.
    Baker was doing the media rounds yesterday arguing that she must stay in post.
    I guess he’s the one clever enough to realise that they’re going to get Hunt or Mordaunt and the ERG batting for a true nutter is both doomed and will make things even worse than hanging onto Loopy.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,882
    edited October 18
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    IanB2 said:

    Betfair suggests Ben Wallace is no longer a runner; there is nothing on the lay side. As a general observation, the Betfair market is quite thin and if you fancy a cheeky tenner on the next Prime Minister, the books might well have better prices.

    He ruled himself out yesterday. Credit to the man for recognising his limitations; he’s guaranteed respect and an important job in the cabinet.

    The ERG has clearly given up on Truss...
    Not entirely.
    Baker was doing the media rounds yesterday arguing that she must stay in post.
    I guess he’s the one clever enough to realise that they’re going to get Hunt or Mordaunt and the ERG batting for a true nutter is both doomed and will make things even worse than hanging onto Loopy.
    Indeed.

    When we look back a few years from now, and shudder, will the public come to lump together the present chaos with leaving the EU? It's the elephant in the room.

    Starmer will do everything he can to avoid answering that question and it will hardly be his priority for the first few years. But it may well be that we have a referendum about rejoining, in some form or other, a decade from now.

    The ERG have so over reached themselves that they've damaged the credibility of the very thing they most stood for. I'm inclined to say that this nearly always happens with zealots and fanatics of whatever persuasion. The Hard Left always do it.

    It's back to centrism for this country. Thank God.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,930
    Ex Raf Pilots training the Chinese, a self avowed adversary, on how to destroy British jets, feels as close to treason as anything I’ve heard in a very long time. What are our lawmakers doing if there is really no law to criminalise this behaviour? Life without parole would be too generous.

    Gas: informed advisors say next winter will be worse than this, as this year european reserves were filled using Russian gas in the summer. Not so next year. And it will be too soon for alternative supply to make up the difference.

    Well done Hunt for realising we must let the pricing signal moderate demand, if we’re to avoid years of centralised rationing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    edited October 18
    LTCOL Roman Malyk, placed in charge of Putin's botched mobilization effort, has been found dead at his residence at Primorsky, in RU’s far east. A police investigation has been launched, and a verdict of “suicide" has not been ruled out.
    https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/1582139126228271104

    (Not sure he was “in charge” of the whole thing.)
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,882
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    IanB2 said:

    Betfair suggests Ben Wallace is no longer a runner; there is nothing on the lay side. As a general observation, the Betfair market is quite thin and if you fancy a cheeky tenner on the next Prime Minister, the books might well have better prices.

    He ruled himself out yesterday. Credit to the man for recognising his limitations; he’s guaranteed respect and an important job in the cabinet.

    The ERG has clearly given up on Truss...
    Not entirely.
    Baker was doing the media rounds yesterday arguing that she must stay in post.
    I guess he’s the one clever enough to realise that they’re going to get Hunt or Mordaunt and the ERG batting for a true nutter is both doomed and will make things even worse than hanging onto Loopy.
    The other bizarre thing about this is that Penny Mordaunt was, and is, the true Brexiteer.

    But for some in the Party her views on for example trans rights are more important than whether we are outside the EU, or whether they win a General Election.

    This loss of perspective is quite staggering. Straining at gnats whilst swallowing camels.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,882
    p.s. can you imagine the despair if we had Corbyn as LOTO right now?

    At least people can see a sensible, if a little dull, way out of the chaos.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,045
    BBC radio: Wallace doesn't want the job and is happy where he is.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    Let me try to explain what's wrong with the new wave of deployment of Russian troops in Belarus and why the threat of a new attack on Kyiv from the north is a bluff.
    https://twitter.com/TadeuszGiczan/status/1582044513274822656
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,048
    Heathener said:

    p.s. can you imagine the despair if we had Corbyn as LOTO right now?

    At least people can see a sensible, if a little dull, way out of the chaos.

    It's interesting to contemplate what Corbyn's position would have been on the three massive events that have faced us since GE2019; Covid, the Ukraine war and the energy crisis.

    I'd argue he'd have been hopeless on Covid: he hasn't even had the gumption to say whether he's been vaccinated. On the Ukraine war, I cannot see him having us help Ukraine in any way ("war is bad, m'kay?"), and I've no idea what he'd try to do with the energy crisis - then again, neither has this government. Probably reopen all the coal mines... ;)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,045
    edited October 18
    WillG said:

    This should be considered treason:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63293582

    I hope parliament acts immediately.

    Truss could do something everyone is happy with by making this illegal.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,927
    edited October 18
    Betfair has Badenoch 32, Braverman 48, Baker 50 (and in each case the lay much higher).

    Even if it went to the members (which it probably won't), Mordaunt only needs to gain five of Truss's 113 votes to eliminate them (assuming they get all the rest who voted for Truss last time).

    It's simply not going to happen.

    And if somehow it did, the members will play it safe anyway.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,151
    Nigelb said:

    Let me try to explain what's wrong with the new wave of deployment of Russian troops in Belarus and why the threat of a new attack on Kyiv from the north is a bluff.
    https://twitter.com/TadeuszGiczan/status/1582044513274822656

    Interesting bit of geography:

    And last but not least. The Belarusian-Ukrainian border is almost entirely covered by the impassable Polesie marshes, the largest wetlands in Europe. The few sections along the roads where the Russians attacked in February have been turned by Ukrainians into the Maginot Line. 15/

    https://twitter.com/TadeuszGiczan/status/1582044592232202249
  • Andy_JS said:

    BBC radio: Wallace doesn't want the job and is happy where he is.

    Good. So it's Sunak. Get on with it
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,045

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC radio: Wallace doesn't want the job and is happy where he is.

    Good. So it's Sunak. Get on with it
    Unless it's Mordaunt.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,151

    Heathener said:

    p.s. can you imagine the despair if we had Corbyn as LOTO right now?

    At least people can see a sensible, if a little dull, way out of the chaos.

    It's interesting to contemplate what Corbyn's position would have been on the three massive events that have faced us since GE2019; Covid, the Ukraine war and the energy crisis.

    I'd argue he'd have been hopeless on Covid: he hasn't even had the gumption to say whether he's been vaccinated. On the Ukraine war, I cannot see him having us help Ukraine in any way ("war is bad, m'kay?"), and I've no idea what he'd try to do with the energy crisis - then again, neither has this government. Probably reopen all the coal mines... ;)
    On COVID Corbyn would have been worse than Starmer (who let us not forget argued for the selective vaccination of - for example, Teachers, ahead of the more clinically vulnerable) with a longer list of “special case” queue jumpers.

    On Ukraine he’d have asked us to “see Russia’s point of view” and much like his disgraceful Salisbury response would have demanded we see both sides of the argument. Let’s not forget it was a bit of misguided political game playing by Ed Miliband that stayed the West’s hand in Syria and helped embolden Putin’s adventurism.

    On the energy crisis he might actually have argued for more effective targeting than the current initial blanket approach - but the fault for that lies with the zombie Johnson government who didn’t do the groundwork.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,930
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC radio: Wallace doesn't want the job and is happy where he is.

    Good. So it's Sunak. Get on with it
    Unless it's Mordaunt.
    Or Hunt.

    Tricky things political coronations.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,474
    moonshine said:

    Ex Raf Pilots training the Chinese, a self avowed adversary, on how to destroy British jets, feels as close to treason as anything I’ve heard in a very long time. What are our lawmakers doing if there is really no law to criminalise this behaviour? Life without parole would be too generous.

    There already is a law - Official Secrets Act. When you get commissioned it states in your contract that you are bound by it and subject to scaphism, etc. if found in transgression.

    In reality, it's impossible to police it because our hypothetical lardy ex-CrabAir mate could be spilling his ample guts over Zoom to the Chicoms and nobody would ever know.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,927
    edited October 18
    Next PM market has Badenoch 46, Braverman 80, Baker 240.

    Prices in post above were for next Con leader so shorter as include possibility of becoming Leader of opposition.

    They really do have a miniscule chance of replacing Truss as PM.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,474
    Heathener said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    IanB2 said:

    Betfair suggests Ben Wallace is no longer a runner; there is nothing on the lay side. As a general observation, the Betfair market is quite thin and if you fancy a cheeky tenner on the next Prime Minister, the books might well have better prices.

    He ruled himself out yesterday. Credit to the man for recognising his limitations; he’s guaranteed respect and an important job in the cabinet.

    The ERG has clearly given up on Truss...
    Not entirely.
    Baker was doing the media rounds yesterday arguing that she must stay in post.
    I guess he’s the one clever enough to realise that they’re going to get Hunt or Mordaunt and the ERG batting for a true nutter is both doomed and will make things even worse than hanging onto Loopy.
    The other bizarre thing about this is that Penny Mordaunt was, and is, the true Brexiteer.

    But for some in the Party her views on for example trans rights are more important than whether we are outside the EU, or whether they win a General Election.

    This loss of perspective is quite staggering. Straining at gnats whilst swallowing camels.
    She's also an avowed Atlanticist which isn't really what we need as we stare in to the drooling maw of Trump47.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453
    WillG said:

    This should be considered treason:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63293582

    I hope parliament acts immediately.

    Currently, it isn't against the law.

    If you wish to make it against the law, you need to pass the law.

  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    Just watched the interview with Truss. On a personal level I am glad that she is ok and not in the midst of a complete breakdown, and seems to be starting to face reality. It looks like, rather than pursuing a dignified exit, she wants to humiliate herself by limping on, clinging to power Theresa May style. But what is clear from the past few weeks is that she lacks the political skills for this type of manoeuvre.

    However the vultures surely now circling. The membership poll is devastating news for her and all those in the party that oppose Sunak.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,670
    Good morning, everyone.

    Football: a tale of red ink, most recent results (not good at all).
    https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/10/results-roundup-18-october.html

    My inkling yesterday was that Truss would resign on the 18th. Let's see if that happens.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,927
    edited October 18

    It is for these reasons that I am entirely relaxed about a labour government

    Yes, the last few weeks have certainly made it much less likely that a Labour Government will do anything at all reckless.

    As well as OBR scrutiny, everything that has happened is going to make Starmer much more nervous about doing anything where there is any risk that markets will react adversely.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,882
    We could be here in a year's time speculating about how many letters Graham Brady has received about Liz Truss.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,241
    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC radio: Wallace doesn't want the job and is happy where he is.

    Good. So it's Sunak. Get on with it
    Unless it's Mordaunt.
    I’m not a Tory, but the answer does seem blindingly obvious. Sunak has shown himself as competent and judicious; he’s the only contender with a record that indicates he could actually do the job.

    If for some reason the Tories want to take a gamble on someone else that’s their lookout. If they can’t even, in these circumstances, see that Sunak is the man they need, there really is no hope for them.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,621

    Nigelb said:

    Let me try to explain what's wrong with the new wave of deployment of Russian troops in Belarus and why the threat of a new attack on Kyiv from the north is a bluff.
    https://twitter.com/TadeuszGiczan/status/1582044513274822656

    Interesting bit of geography:

    And last but not least. The Belarusian-Ukrainian border is almost entirely covered by the impassable Polesie marshes, the largest wetlands in Europe. The few sections along the roads where the Russians attacked in February have been turned by Ukrainians into the Maginot Line. 15/

    https://twitter.com/TadeuszGiczan/status/1582044592232202249
    With preparation armoured warfare there is possible. Indeed log roads through swamps thought impassable by the Germans were part of Operation Bagration in the summer of 1944.

    I don't think the modern Russian and Belarussian armies are capable of that.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    MikeL said:

    It is for these reasons that I am entirely relaxed about a labour government

    Yes, the last two weeks have certainly made it less likely that a Labour Government will do anything too reckless.

    As well as OBR scrutiny, everything that has happened is going to make Starmer much more nervous about doing anything where there is any risk that markets react adversely.
    I don't buy this at all. Starmer is skillfully holding in check all the usual instincts to spray money at every politically favoured cause amongst its ranks of deluded and deranged activist MPs, who have largely arrived on the scene against the backdrop of 'tory austerity'. It is almost as inevitable, like a phenomenon in the natural world. Starmer cannot do anything to stop it. All the public sector workers will be demanding 15% more pay etc, their unions and MPs will go along with it, and the Labour government will just agree to the requests. Can you imagine Angela Rayner etc saying no to the baying masses of aggrieved healthcare workers wanting £1 per hour more?

    It really feels like we are in the mid 1970s, Labour will get a few years to really destroy the economy, and then we finally get the necessary structural reform after that.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808
    edited October 18
    Heathener said:

    It was interesting following both BBC & ITV News last night because both sets of commentators described the state of shell-shock among Conservative MPs.

    There are a few on here for whom the penny has still not yet dropped. The Conservatives are going to lose the next General Election very heavily. You simply don't come back from 30% poll deficits.

    Even in 1992-7 when the economy was in stellar state, Labour still won with a lead of 12.5%.

    There's a really good article on this, which starts by quoting @MikeSmithson
    https://www.markpack.org.uk/4875/why-wasnt-it-the-economy-stupid-in-1997/

    What trashed the Conservatives in 1997 was what happened 4.5 years before on Black Wednesday. I remember that day and it was (until now) unprecedented. It wasn't just what actually happened in economic terms, it was the sense of a Government which was totally out of control. It was completely chaotic. The pound crashed, the BoE burned £10bn trying to save it, and interest rates rose twice, then fell and we ejected from the ERM. It was chaos.

    What happened that day trashed the tory's reputation for economic competence.

    Roll on quarter of a century and they've done it again, only this time far worse. The utter chaos. The total shambles. The zillion U-turns. The now-unprecedented sense of a Government in office but not in power. It is gobsmacking.

    But what is FAR FAR worse for the Conservatives this time around is that unlike 1997, the fiscal economic outlook is very grim. We are heading INTO recession, with high inflation, higher interest rates, public sector borrowing out of control, public services already on their knees now coming under further constraints, and a terrible cost of living crisis.

    Quite simply, anyone who even entertains for one second the notion that the tories can win the next election is living in cloud cuckoo land.

    The only question now is: how big a defeat will they suffer?

    Nothing in your post is wrong, including the conclusion.

    But you’ve put all your chips on one factor.

    Two other considerations are, firstly, the stronger position of Labour in 1997, with a popular charismatic leader besting the government in parliament, and a prepared policy programme which was both costed to reassure the markets and packaged into the five pledges to sell to the public.

    Starmer has some heavy lifting to do to achieve the same, and is hard to see his personality ever generating the same enthusiasm as there was for Blair.

    And, secondly, it’s an established fact that voters feel more able to invest in a centre-left government when things are improving and there’s money to spend on better services. Whereas in hard and worsening times, voters typically look to the right. Pack ignores this factor which worked against the improving economy reviving the Tories - it was the improving economy that made Labour’s promises of better schools and hospitals credible.

    As I say, I accept your conclusion, but still feel the Tories have the ability to run Labour closer than in 1997, if they get their act together (a big IF). And we’re still not seeing Labour walking by-election victories, nationally or locally, in the way that they did in the 1990s.

    The next election is to elect a government to sort out the most tremendous mess, which has never been Labour’s role. A huge challenge for Starmer’s team.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808
    edited October 18
    Heathener said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    IanB2 said:

    Betfair suggests Ben Wallace is no longer a runner; there is nothing on the lay side. As a general observation, the Betfair market is quite thin and if you fancy a cheeky tenner on the next Prime Minister, the books might well have better prices.

    He ruled himself out yesterday. Credit to the man for recognising his limitations; he’s guaranteed respect and an important job in the cabinet.

    The ERG has clearly given up on Truss...
    Not entirely.
    Baker was doing the media rounds yesterday arguing that she must stay in post.
    I guess he’s the one clever enough to realise that they’re going to get Hunt or Mordaunt and the ERG batting for a true nutter is both doomed and will make things even worse than hanging onto Loopy.
    The other bizarre thing about this is that Penny Mordaunt was, and is, the true Brexiteer.

    But for some in the Party her views on for example trans rights are more important than whether we are outside the EU, or whether they win a General Election.

    This loss of perspective is quite staggering. Straining at gnats whilst swallowing camels.
    cf A stack of posts from our Leon, in-between telling us we’re all going to die of covid or in a nuclear apocalypse, wetting his panties about relative trivia (and telling us that Putin was the man to set the West a better example!)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808
    Dura_Ace said:

    Heathener said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    IanB2 said:

    Betfair suggests Ben Wallace is no longer a runner; there is nothing on the lay side. As a general observation, the Betfair market is quite thin and if you fancy a cheeky tenner on the next Prime Minister, the books might well have better prices.

    He ruled himself out yesterday. Credit to the man for recognising his limitations; he’s guaranteed respect and an important job in the cabinet.

    The ERG has clearly given up on Truss...
    Not entirely.
    Baker was doing the media rounds yesterday arguing that she must stay in post.
    I guess he’s the one clever enough to realise that they’re going to get Hunt or Mordaunt and the ERG batting for a true nutter is both doomed and will make things even worse than hanging onto Loopy.
    The other bizarre thing about this is that Penny Mordaunt was, and is, the true Brexiteer.

    But for some in the Party her views on for example trans rights are more important than whether we are outside the EU, or whether they win a General Election.

    This loss of perspective is quite staggering. Straining at gnats whilst swallowing camels.
    She's also an avowed Atlanticist which isn't really what we need as we stare in to the drooling maw of Trump47.
    Yes, but perhaps we’ve become used to focusing too much on the leader? Mordaunt’s strength - which she realised and was essentially her pitch - is as an effective leader of the team. I don’t think she’d try to impose herself on the government as May, Johnson and Truss did (all failing, in their different ways). And she’d be better at taking advice.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    It was interesting following both BBC & ITV News last night because both sets of commentators described the state of shell-shock among Conservative MPs.

    There are a few on here for whom the penny has still not yet dropped. The Conservatives are going to lose the next General Election very heavily. You simply don't come back from 30% poll deficits.

    Even in 1992-7 when the economy was in stellar state, Labour still won with a lead of 12.5%.

    There's a really good article on this, which starts by quoting @MikeSmithson
    https://www.markpack.org.uk/4875/why-wasnt-it-the-economy-stupid-in-1997/

    What trashed the Conservatives in 1997 was what happened 4.5 years before on Black Wednesday. I remember that day and it was (until now) unprecedented. It wasn't just what actually happened in economic terms, it was the sense of a Government which was totally out of control. It was completely chaotic. The pound crashed, the BoE burned £10bn trying to save it, and interest rates rose twice, then fell and we ejected from the ERM. It was chaos.

    What happened that day trashed the tory's reputation for economic competence.

    Roll on quarter of a century and they've done it again, only this time far worse. The utter chaos. The total shambles. The zillion U-turns. The now-unprecedented sense of a Government in office but not in power. It is gobsmacking.

    But what is FAR FAR worse for the Conservatives this time around is that unlike 1997, the fiscal economic outlook is very grim. We are heading INTO recession, with high inflation, higher interest rates, public sector borrowing out of control, public services already on their knees now coming under further constraints, and a terrible cost of living crisis.

    Quite simply, anyone who even entertains for one second the notion that the tories can win the next election is living in cloud cuckoo land.

    The only question now is: how big a defeat will they suffer?

    Nothing in your post is wrong, including the conclusion.

    But you’ve put all your chips on one factor.

    Two other considerations are, firstly, the stronger position of Labour in 1997, with a popular charismatic leader besting the government in parliament, and a prepared policy programme which was both costed to reassure the markets and packaged into the five pledges to sell to the public.

    Starmer has some heavy lifting to do to achieve the same, and is hard to see his personality ever generating the same enthusiasm as there was for Blair.

    And, secondly, it’s an established fact that voters feel more able to invest in a centre-left government when things are improving and there’s money to spend on better services. Whereas in hard and worsening times, voters typically look to the right. Pack ignores this factor which worked against the improving economy reviving the Tories - it was the improving economy that made Labour’s promises of better schools and hospitals credible.

    As I say, I accept your conclusion, but still feel the Tories have the ability to run Labour closer than in 1997, if they get their act together (a big IF). And we’re still not seeing Labour walking by-election victories, nationally or locally, in the way that they did in the 1990s.

    The next election is to elect a government to sort out the most tremendous mess, which has never been Labour’s role. A huge challenge for Starmer’s team.
    Also, the markets have now closed off the ability to borrow to fund their manifesto. This is going to be raising the questions of which taxes are you going to raise to pay for it, Labour? On Newsnight last night, James Murray, Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was utterly woeful on economic policy. If he is indicative of what Labour are offering up, those opinion poll leads are going to look very transient....
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,451
    I wish the poll mentioned in the header had asked them to choose between each pair of Truss, Rishi, Mordaunt and Hunt. Rishi being preferred to Truss after the last few weeks feels a bit obvious. But does he beat the other potential leaders?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,468
    Heathener said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    IanB2 said:

    Betfair suggests Ben Wallace is no longer a runner; there is nothing on the lay side. As a general observation, the Betfair market is quite thin and if you fancy a cheeky tenner on the next Prime Minister, the books might well have better prices.

    He ruled himself out yesterday. Credit to the man for recognising his limitations; he’s guaranteed respect and an important job in the cabinet.

    The ERG has clearly given up on Truss...
    Not entirely.
    Baker was doing the media rounds yesterday arguing that she must stay in post.
    I guess he’s the one clever enough to realise that they’re going to get Hunt or Mordaunt and the ERG batting for a true nutter is both doomed and will make things even worse than hanging onto Loopy.
    Indeed.

    When we look back a few years from now, and shudder, will the public come to lump together the present chaos with leaving the EU? It's the elephant in the room.

    Starmer will do everything he can to avoid answering that question and it will hardly be his priority for the first few years. But it may well be that we have a referendum about rejoining, in some form or other, a decade from now.

    The ERG have so over reached themselves that they've damaged the credibility of the very thing they most stood for. I'm inclined to say that this nearly always happens with zealots and fanatics of whatever persuasion. The Hard Left always do it.

    It's back to centrism for this country. Thank God.
    Given what's happened to Truss I'm thinking a more centrist approach will be taken but they still lose big, which will mean at least 2 election cycles of Tories claiming the problem was not being right wing enough
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,468
    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Heathener said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    IanB2 said:

    Betfair suggests Ben Wallace is no longer a runner; there is nothing on the lay side. As a general observation, the Betfair market is quite thin and if you fancy a cheeky tenner on the next Prime Minister, the books might well have better prices.

    He ruled himself out yesterday. Credit to the man for recognising his limitations; he’s guaranteed respect and an important job in the cabinet.

    The ERG has clearly given up on Truss...
    Not entirely.
    Baker was doing the media rounds yesterday arguing that she must stay in post.
    I guess he’s the one clever enough to realise that they’re going to get Hunt or Mordaunt and the ERG batting for a true nutter is both doomed and will make things even worse than hanging onto Loopy.
    The other bizarre thing about this is that Penny Mordaunt was, and is, the true Brexiteer.

    But for some in the Party her views on for example trans rights are more important than whether we are outside the EU, or whether they win a General Election.

    This loss of perspective is quite staggering. Straining at gnats whilst swallowing camels.
    She's also an avowed Atlanticist which isn't really what we need as we stare in to the drooling maw of Trump47.
    Yes, but perhaps we’ve become used to focusing too much on the leader? Mordaunt’s strength - which she realised and was essentially her pitch - is as an effective leader of the team. I don’t think she’d try to impose herself on the government as May, Johnson and Truss did (all failing, in their different ways). And she’d be better at taking advice.
    Did she realise it really, or was it just necessary to say it as a less experienced candidate?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,468
    Chris said:

    We could be here in a year's time speculating about how many letters Graham Brady has received about Liz Truss.

    I think she gets to May if she makes it through the week. MPs are moaning but we're no closer to a unity candidate. Heck, that Rishi is only 60/40 with members at this moment shows thty must be pretty reluctant.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808
    edited October 18

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    It was interesting following both BBC & ITV News last night because both sets of commentators described the state of shell-shock among Conservative MPs.

    There are a few on here for whom the penny has still not yet dropped. The Conservatives are going to lose the next General Election very heavily. You simply don't come back from 30% poll deficits.

    Even in 1992-7 when the economy was in stellar state, Labour still won with a lead of 12.5%.

    There's a really good article on this, which starts by quoting @MikeSmithson
    https://www.markpack.org.uk/4875/why-wasnt-it-the-economy-stupid-in-1997/

    What trashed the Conservatives in 1997 was what happened 4.5 years before on Black Wednesday. I remember that day and it was (until now) unprecedented. It wasn't just what actually happened in economic terms, it was the sense of a Government which was totally out of control. It was completely chaotic. The pound crashed, the BoE burned £10bn trying to save it, and interest rates rose twice, then fell and we ejected from the ERM. It was chaos.

    What happened that day trashed the tory's reputation for economic competence.

    Roll on quarter of a century and they've done it again, only this time far worse. The utter chaos. The total shambles. The zillion U-turns. The now-unprecedented sense of a Government in office but not in power. It is gobsmacking.

    But what is FAR FAR worse for the Conservatives this time around is that unlike 1997, the fiscal economic outlook is very grim. We are heading INTO recession, with high inflation, higher interest rates, public sector borrowing out of control, public services already on their knees now coming under further constraints, and a terrible cost of living crisis.

    Quite simply, anyone who even entertains for one second the notion that the tories can win the next election is living in cloud cuckoo land.

    The only question now is: how big a defeat will they suffer?

    Nothing in your post is wrong, including the conclusion.

    But you’ve put all your chips on one factor.

    Two other considerations are, firstly, the stronger position of Labour in 1997, with a popular charismatic leader besting the government in parliament, and a prepared policy programme which was both costed to reassure the markets and packaged into the five pledges to sell to the public.

    Starmer has some heavy lifting to do to achieve the same, and is hard to see his personality ever generating the same enthusiasm as there was for Blair.

    And, secondly, it’s an established fact that voters feel more able to invest in a centre-left government when things are improving and there’s money to spend on better services. Whereas in hard and worsening times, voters typically look to the right. Pack ignores this factor which worked against the improving economy reviving the Tories - it was the improving economy that made Labour’s promises of better schools and hospitals credible.

    As I say, I accept your conclusion, but still feel the Tories have the ability to run Labour closer than in 1997, if they get their act together (a big IF). And we’re still not seeing Labour walking by-election victories, nationally or locally, in the way that they did in the 1990s.

    The next election is to elect a government to sort out the most tremendous mess, which has never been Labour’s role. A huge challenge for Starmer’s team.
    Also, the markets have now closed off the ability to borrow to fund their manifesto. This is going to be raising the questions of which taxes are you going to raise to pay for it, Labour? On Newsnight last night, James Murray, Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was utterly woeful on economic policy. If he is indicative of what Labour are offering up, those opinion poll leads are going to look very transient....
    Labour’s going to have to be the ones who make the move towards taxing wealth (or at least, property or land). The question is whether they are brave enough to trail this in advance (if the Tory civil war continues and they remain stuck in the low 20%s, there’s an argument for being brave) or whether they try and fudge their programme, promising relatively little, and then spring it on us when they “look at the books” and tell us how bad a mess the Tories have left them.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,300
    darkage said:

    MikeL said:

    It is for these reasons that I am entirely relaxed about a labour government

    Yes, the last two weeks have certainly made it less likely that a Labour Government will do anything too reckless.

    As well as OBR scrutiny, everything that has happened is going to make Starmer much more nervous about doing anything where there is any risk that markets react adversely.
    I don't buy this at all. Starmer is skillfully holding in check all the usual instincts to spray money at every politically favoured cause amongst its ranks of deluded and deranged activist MPs, who have largely arrived on the scene against the backdrop of 'tory austerity'. It is almost as inevitable, like a phenomenon in the natural world. Starmer cannot do anything to stop it. All the public sector workers will be demanding 15% more pay etc, their unions and MPs will go along with it, and the Labour government will just agree to the requests. Can you imagine Angela Rayner etc saying no to the baying masses of aggrieved healthcare workers wanting £1 per hour more?

    It really feels like we are in the mid 1970s, Labour will get a few years to really destroy the economy, and then we finally get the necessary structural reform after that.
    How would you describe the last couple of years, and particularly the last couple of months, if not "destroying the economy?"
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,365

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    It was interesting following both BBC & ITV News last night because both sets of commentators described the state of shell-shock among Conservative MPs.

    There are a few on here for whom the penny has still not yet dropped. The Conservatives are going to lose the next General Election very heavily. You simply don't come back from 30% poll deficits.

    Even in 1992-7 when the economy was in stellar state, Labour still won with a lead of 12.5%.

    There's a really good article on this, which starts by quoting @MikeSmithson
    https://www.markpack.org.uk/4875/why-wasnt-it-the-economy-stupid-in-1997/

    What trashed the Conservatives in 1997 was what happened 4.5 years before on Black Wednesday. I remember that day and it was (until now) unprecedented. It wasn't just what actually happened in economic terms, it was the sense of a Government which was totally out of control. It was completely chaotic. The pound crashed, the BoE burned £10bn trying to save it, and interest rates rose twice, then fell and we ejected from the ERM. It was chaos.

    What happened that day trashed the tory's reputation for economic competence.

    Roll on quarter of a century and they've done it again, only this time far worse. The utter chaos. The total shambles. The zillion U-turns. The now-unprecedented sense of a Government in office but not in power. It is gobsmacking.

    But what is FAR FAR worse for the Conservatives this time around is that unlike 1997, the fiscal economic outlook is very grim. We are heading INTO recession, with high inflation, higher interest rates, public sector borrowing out of control, public services already on their knees now coming under further constraints, and a terrible cost of living crisis.

    Quite simply, anyone who even entertains for one second the notion that the tories can win the next election is living in cloud cuckoo land.

    The only question now is: how big a defeat will they suffer?

    Nothing in your post is wrong, including the conclusion.

    But you’ve put all your chips on one factor.

    Two other considerations are, firstly, the stronger position of Labour in 1997, with a popular charismatic leader besting the government in parliament, and a prepared policy programme which was both costed to reassure the markets and packaged into the five pledges to sell to the public.

    Starmer has some heavy lifting to do to achieve the same, and is hard to see his personality ever generating the same enthusiasm as there was for Blair.

    And, secondly, it’s an established fact that voters feel more able to invest in a centre-left government when things are improving and there’s money to spend on better services. Whereas in hard and worsening times, voters typically look to the right. Pack ignores this factor which worked against the improving economy reviving the Tories - it was the improving economy that made Labour’s promises of better schools and hospitals credible.

    As I say, I accept your conclusion, but still feel the Tories have the ability to run Labour closer than in 1997, if they get their act together (a big IF). And we’re still not seeing Labour walking by-election victories, nationally or locally, in the way that they did in the 1990s.

    The next election is to elect a government to sort out the most tremendous mess, which has never been Labour’s role. A huge challenge for Starmer’s team.
    Also, the markets have now closed off the ability to borrow to fund their manifesto. This
    is going to be raising the questions of which taxes are you going to raise to pay for it, Labour? On Newsnight last night, James Murray, Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was utterly woeful on economic policy. If he is indicative of what Labour are offering up, those opinion poll leads are going to look very transient....
    In a two man race it doesn’t matter if you’re using a walking stick when your opponent has fallen over, broken both his legs, insulted the crowd, and, it emerges, was on the piss for several weeks beforehand.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,670
    Mr. kle4, I wonder: does Hunt become a likelier or less likely successor if it stays with Truss as PM and himself as Chancellor for longer than people expect?
  • RattersRatters Posts: 468
    From Labour's perspective, the Tories holding on for two more years with a competent chancellor making difficult decisions is a good outcome. It means the house fire will have mostly been put out and they don't have to spend their entire term sorting out the mess of the previous government.

    Hunt is making good steps in that direction. It's also in the national interest and the interest of the Tory party if they want a chance of a respectable 200 seat showing next time around, albeit a change of leader at some point will be needed for that too.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,468

    Mr. kle4, I wonder: does Hunt become a likelier or less likely successor if it stays with Truss as PM and himself as Chancellor for longer than people expect?

    I think likelier. Her reputation and authority is shattered and isn't coming back, so if things rebound even a little Hunt gets the credit, even if that's not fair. The more he seems to have 'fixed' things the more reason to crown.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808
    edited October 18
    kle4 said:

    Mr. kle4, I wonder: does Hunt become a likelier or less likely successor if it stays with Truss as PM and himself as Chancellor for longer than people expect?

    I think likelier. Her reputation and authority is shattered and isn't coming back, so if things rebound even a little Hunt gets the credit, even if that's not fair. The more he seems to have 'fixed' things the more reason to crown.
    That is my feeling. Provided of course he doesn’t make himself difficult to move out of number 11, like Brown did.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    kyf_100 said:

    darkage said:

    MikeL said:

    It is for these reasons that I am entirely relaxed about a labour government

    Yes, the last two weeks have certainly made it less likely that a Labour Government will do anything too reckless.

    As well as OBR scrutiny, everything that has happened is going to make Starmer much more nervous about doing anything where there is any risk that markets react adversely.
    I don't buy this at all. Starmer is skillfully holding in check all the usual instincts to spray money at every politically favoured cause amongst its ranks of deluded and deranged activist MPs, who have largely arrived on the scene against the backdrop of 'tory austerity'. It is almost as inevitable, like a phenomenon in the natural world. Starmer cannot do anything to stop it. All the public sector workers will be demanding 15% more pay etc, their unions and MPs will go along with it, and the Labour government will just agree to the requests. Can you imagine Angela Rayner etc saying no to the baying masses of aggrieved healthcare workers wanting £1 per hour more?

    It really feels like we are in the mid 1970s, Labour will get a few years to really destroy the economy, and then we finally get the necessary structural reform after that.
    How would you describe the last couple of years, and particularly the last couple of months, if not "destroying the economy?"
    There is a difference between 'destroying the economy' and 'really destroying the economy'. The discussion in parliament yesterday was quite revealing, in this respect. Labour have no answers other than to spray money at every politically fashionable and favourable cause that grabs their attention. They have also had the strategy of going along with tax cuts supported by the tories which has worked out ok for them when we had a clown as PM, but when up against someone like Jeremy Hunt they suddenly don't look so clever.

    If you are thinking of voting labour, then you need to look past Starmer - You need to look carefully in to their MPs and what they say and believe.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176
    In my view both Sunak and Mordaunt should be about 4s (it's too heavily skewed to Sunak at the moment) and Hunt about 8s, at least.

    That forms the basis of my betting, for now.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,392
    Nigelb said:

    Let me try to explain what's wrong with the new wave of deployment of Russian troops in Belarus and why the threat of a new attack on Kyiv from the north is a bluff.
    https://twitter.com/TadeuszGiczan/status/1582044513274822656

    I hope you’re not implying that @Leon qas panicking about nothing?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    Massive attack on energy infrastructure facilities this morning. Kyiv - three strikes on an energy supply facility in Desnyansky district. Dnipro, 2 strikes at energy infrastructure facility. “Serious damage”. Zhytomyr - no electricity and water supply. Ph from Dnipro.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/maria_avdv/status/1582259557434527744
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808
    edited October 18
    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    darkage said:

    MikeL said:

    It is for these reasons that I am entirely relaxed about a labour government

    Yes, the last two weeks have certainly made it less likely that a Labour Government will do anything too reckless.

    As well as OBR scrutiny, everything that has happened is going to make Starmer much more nervous about doing anything where there is any risk that markets react adversely.
    I don't buy this at all. Starmer is skillfully holding in check all the usual instincts to spray money at every politically favoured cause amongst its ranks of deluded and deranged activist MPs, who have largely arrived on the scene against the backdrop of 'tory austerity'. It is almost as inevitable, like a phenomenon in the natural world. Starmer cannot do anything to stop it. All the public sector workers will be demanding 15% more pay etc, their unions and MPs will go along with it, and the Labour government will just agree to the requests. Can you imagine Angela Rayner etc saying no to the baying masses of aggrieved healthcare workers wanting £1 per hour more?

    It really feels like we are in the mid 1970s, Labour will get a few years to really destroy the economy, and then we finally get the necessary structural reform after that.
    How would you describe the last couple of years, and particularly the last couple of months, if not "destroying the economy?"
    There is a difference between 'destroying the economy' and 'really destroying the economy'. The discussion in parliament yesterday was quite revealing, in this respect. Labour have no answers other than to spray money at every politically fashionable and favourable cause that grabs their attention. They have also had the strategy of going along with tax cuts supported by the tories which has worked out ok for them when we had a clown as PM, but when up against someone like Jeremy Hunt they suddenly don't look so clever.

    If you are thinking of voting labour, then you need to look past Starmer - You need to look carefully in to their MPs and what they say and believe.

    Yes, with hindsight saying that the tax cuts were irresponsible at a time of crisis when the government’s books already didn’t balance would have been the correct move.

    I’m seeing nothing of the professionalism and ruthless focus that we saw from Labour in the 1990s.

    Talking of Labour’s team, I haven’t seen Streeting on their front bench for any of the big occasions in parliament recently, which no-one in active in top-level politics would want to miss. I hope he’s not ill again?
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,365
    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    darkage said:

    MikeL said:

    It is for these reasons that I am entirely relaxed about a labour government

    Yes, the last two weeks have certainly made it less likely that a Labour Government will do anything too reckless.

    As well as OBR scrutiny, everything that has happened is going to make Starmer much more nervous about doing anything where there is any risk that markets react adversely.
    I don't buy this at all. Starmer is skillfully holding in check all the usual instincts to spray money at every politically favoured cause amongst its ranks of deluded and deranged activist MPs, who have largely arrived on the scene against the backdrop of 'tory austerity'. It is almost as inevitable, like a phenomenon in the natural world. Starmer cannot do anything to stop it. All the public sector workers will be demanding 15% more pay etc, their unions and MPs will go along with it, and the Labour government will just agree to the requests. Can you imagine Angela Rayner etc saying no to the baying masses of aggrieved healthcare workers wanting £1 per hour more?

    It really feels like we are in the mid 1970s, Labour will get a few years to really destroy the economy, and then we finally get the necessary structural reform after that.
    How would you describe the last couple of years, and particularly the last couple of months, if not "destroying the economy?"
    There is a difference between 'destroying the economy' and 'really destroying the economy'. The discussion in parliament yesterday was quite revealing, in this respect. Labour have no answers other than to spray money at every politically fashionable and favourable cause that grabs their attention. They have also had the strategy of going along with tax cuts supported by the tories which has worked out ok for them when we had a clown as PM, but when up against someone like Jeremy Hunt they suddenly don't look so clever.

    If you are thinking of voting labour, then you need to look past Starmer - You need to look carefully in to their MPs and what they say and believe.

    Same with the Conservative Party though. The Tory Party foisted this catastrophe on us and you are saying we should only look behind Starmer? The living, breathing embodiment of the will of the ruling party is in Number 10, and you’re saying that we should give them a pass because the danger lies across the aisles? Really? The extremist party is on the Treasury benches at the moment.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,670
    Mr. B, sad to hear of more attacks on infrastructure in Ukraine.

    Mr. Royale, hmm. I would have Sunak as favourite. But time will tell.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,392

    Andy_JS said:

    Andy_JS said:

    BBC radio: Wallace doesn't want the job and is happy where he is.

    Good. So it's Sunak. Get on with it
    Unless it's Mordaunt.
    I’m not a Tory, but the answer does seem blindingly obvious. Sunak has shown himself as competent and judicious; he’s the only contender with a record that indicates he could actually do the job.

    If for some reason the Tories want to take a gamble on someone else that’s their lookout. If they can’t even, in these circumstances, see that Sunak is the man they need, there really is no hope for them.
    Hunt as well
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176

    Mr. kle4, I wonder: does Hunt become a likelier or less likely successor if it stays with Truss as PM and himself as Chancellor for longer than people expect?

    I don't think Hunt is going for it, and knows he'd struggle to unite MPs.

    The longer Truss stays as PM with him as Chancellor the more apparent that will become.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    kle4 said:

    Chris said:

    We could be here in a year's time speculating about how many letters Graham Brady has received about Liz Truss.

    I think she gets to May if she makes it through the week. MPs are moaning but we're no closer to a unity candidate. Heck, that Rishi is only 60/40 with members at this moment shows thty must be pretty reluctant.
    The week? She has to make it through PMQs first.

    Unless she produces a performance the likes of which we haven't seen in decades. it will be her last.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176

    Mr. B, sad to hear of more attacks on infrastructure in Ukraine.

    Mr. Royale, hmm. I would have Sunak as favourite. But time will tell.

    Sunak isn't at the table and Mordaunt gave an impressive performance yesterday, and we know she's on manoeuvres.

    I don't think there's much to choose between them, except the commentariat are fixated on Sunak.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    edited October 18
    Will the Tories fall into line and love Sunak the high taxing double usurper?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176
    DougSeal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    It was interesting following both BBC & ITV News last night because both sets of commentators described the state of shell-shock among Conservative MPs.

    There are a few on here for whom the penny has still not yet dropped. The Conservatives are going to lose the next General Election very heavily. You simply don't come back from 30% poll deficits.

    Even in 1992-7 when the economy was in stellar state, Labour still won with a lead of 12.5%.

    There's a really good article on this, which starts by quoting @MikeSmithson
    https://www.markpack.org.uk/4875/why-wasnt-it-the-economy-stupid-in-1997/

    What trashed the Conservatives in 1997 was what happened 4.5 years before on Black Wednesday. I remember that day and it was (until now) unprecedented. It wasn't just what actually happened in economic terms, it was the sense of a Government which was totally out of control. It was completely chaotic. The pound crashed, the BoE burned £10bn trying to save it, and interest rates rose twice, then fell and we ejected from the ERM. It was chaos.

    What happened that day trashed the tory's reputation for economic competence.

    Roll on quarter of a century and they've done it again, only this time far worse. The utter chaos. The total shambles. The zillion U-turns. The now-unprecedented sense of a Government in office but not in power. It is gobsmacking.

    But what is FAR FAR worse for the Conservatives this time around is that unlike 1997, the fiscal economic outlook is very grim. We are heading INTO recession, with high inflation, higher interest rates, public sector borrowing out of control, public services already on their knees now coming under further constraints, and a terrible cost of living crisis.

    Quite simply, anyone who even entertains for one second the notion that the tories can win the next election is living in cloud cuckoo land.

    The only question now is: how big a defeat will they suffer?

    Nothing in your post is wrong, including the conclusion.

    But you’ve put all your chips on one factor.

    Two other considerations are, firstly, the stronger position of Labour in 1997, with a popular charismatic leader besting the government in parliament, and a prepared policy programme which was both costed to reassure the markets and packaged into the five pledges to sell to the public.

    Starmer has some heavy lifting to do to achieve the same, and is hard to see his personality ever generating the same enthusiasm as there was for Blair.

    And, secondly, it’s an established fact that voters feel more able to invest in a centre-left government when things are improving and there’s money to spend on better services. Whereas in hard and worsening times, voters typically look to the right. Pack ignores this factor which worked against the improving economy reviving the Tories - it was the improving economy that made Labour’s promises of better schools and hospitals credible.

    As I say, I accept your conclusion, but still feel the Tories have the ability to run Labour closer than in 1997, if they get their act together (a big IF). And we’re still not seeing Labour walking by-election victories, nationally or locally, in the way that they did in the 1990s.

    The next election is to elect a government to sort out the most tremendous mess, which has never been Labour’s role. A huge challenge for Starmer’s team.
    Also, the markets have now closed off the ability to borrow to fund their manifesto. This
    is going to be raising the questions of which taxes are you going to raise to pay for it, Labour? On Newsnight last night, James Murray, Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was utterly woeful on economic policy. If he is indicative of what Labour are offering up, those opinion poll leads are going to look very transient....
    In a two man race it doesn’t matter if you’re using a walking stick when your opponent has fallen over, broken both his legs, insulted the crowd, and, it emerges, was on the piss for several weeks beforehand.
    No, but it means Labour could be a one-term administration.
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 517

    DJ41 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.

    So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.

    But Zahawi is the COO...

    Stop giggling at the back
    ^^^ Did the mods not see this racist post?
    The mods are well known for being racist gammons.
    Calling a non-white man a "COO..." seems to be considered here, including by the moderators, to be nothing more than harmless banter.

    Goodbye, PB. I won't be posting here any more.
    Taz said:

    DJ41 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.

    So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.

    But Zahawi is the COO...

    Stop giggling at the back
    ^^^ Did the mods not see this racist post?
    How is it racist ?
    ScottXP was calling Nadhim Zahawi a coon. If you don't know why that's racist, I'd suggest you ask someone what racism is. Get a clue.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,365

    DougSeal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    It was interesting following both BBC & ITV News last night because both sets of commentators described the state of shell-shock among Conservative MPs.

    There are a few on here for whom the penny has still not yet dropped. The Conservatives are going to lose the next General Election very heavily. You simply don't come back from 30% poll deficits.

    Even in 1992-7 when the economy was in stellar state, Labour still won with a lead of 12.5%.

    There's a really good article on this, which starts by quoting @MikeSmithson
    https://www.markpack.org.uk/4875/why-wasnt-it-the-economy-stupid-in-1997/

    What trashed the Conservatives in 1997 was what happened 4.5 years before on Black Wednesday. I remember that day and it was (until now) unprecedented. It wasn't just what actually happened in economic terms, it was the sense of a Government which was totally out of control. It was completely chaotic. The pound crashed, the BoE burned £10bn trying to save it, and interest rates rose twice, then fell and we ejected from the ERM. It was chaos.

    What happened that day trashed the tory's reputation for economic competence.

    Roll on quarter of a century and they've done it again, only this time far worse. The utter chaos. The total shambles. The zillion U-turns. The now-unprecedented sense of a Government in office but not in power. It is gobsmacking.

    But what is FAR FAR worse for the Conservatives this time around is that unlike 1997, the fiscal economic outlook is very grim. We are heading INTO recession, with high inflation, higher interest rates, public sector borrowing out of control, public services already on their knees now coming under further constraints, and a terrible cost of living crisis.

    Quite simply, anyone who even entertains for one second the notion that the tories can win the next election is living in cloud cuckoo land.

    The only question now is: how big a defeat will they suffer?

    Nothing in your post is wrong, including the conclusion.

    But you’ve put all your chips on one factor.

    Two other considerations are, firstly, the stronger position of Labour in 1997, with a popular charismatic leader besting the government in parliament, and a prepared policy programme which was both costed to reassure the markets and packaged into the five pledges to sell to the public.

    Starmer has some heavy lifting to do to achieve the same, and is hard to see his personality ever generating the same enthusiasm as there was for Blair.

    And, secondly, it’s an established fact that voters feel more able to invest in a centre-left government when things are improving and there’s money to spend on better services. Whereas in hard and worsening times, voters typically look to the right. Pack ignores this factor which worked against the improving economy reviving the Tories - it was the improving economy that made Labour’s promises of better schools and hospitals credible.

    As I say, I accept your conclusion, but still feel the Tories have the ability to run Labour closer than in 1997, if they get their act together (a big IF). And we’re still not seeing Labour walking by-election victories, nationally or locally, in the way that they did in the 1990s.

    The next election is to elect a government to sort out the most tremendous mess, which has never been Labour’s role. A huge challenge for Starmer’s team.
    Also, the markets have now closed off the ability to borrow to fund their manifesto. This
    is going to be raising the questions of which taxes are you going to raise to pay for it, Labour? On Newsnight last night, James Murray, Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was utterly woeful on economic policy. If he is indicative of what Labour are offering up, those opinion poll leads are going to look very transient....
    In a two man race it doesn’t matter if you’re using a walking stick when your opponent has fallen over, broken both his legs, insulted the crowd, and, it emerges, was on the piss for several weeks beforehand.
    No, but it means Labour could be a one-term administration.
    Prognostications that far ahead are pointless.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322
    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    darkage said:

    MikeL said:

    It is for these reasons that I am entirely relaxed about a labour government

    Yes, the last two weeks have certainly made it less likely that a Labour Government will do anything too reckless.

    As well as OBR scrutiny, everything that has happened is going to make Starmer much more nervous about doing anything where there is any risk that markets react adversely.
    I don't buy this at all. Starmer is skillfully holding in check all the usual instincts to spray money at every politically favoured cause amongst its ranks of deluded and deranged activist MPs, who have largely arrived on the scene against the backdrop of 'tory austerity'. It is almost as inevitable, like a phenomenon in the natural world. Starmer cannot do anything to stop it. All the public sector workers will be demanding 15% more pay etc, their unions and MPs will go along with it, and the Labour government will just agree to the requests. Can you imagine Angela Rayner etc saying no to the baying masses of aggrieved healthcare workers wanting £1 per hour more?

    It really feels like we are in the mid 1970s, Labour will get a few years to really destroy the economy, and then we finally get the necessary structural reform after that.
    How would you describe the last couple of years, and particularly the last couple of months, if not "destroying the economy?"
    There is a difference between 'destroying the economy' and 'really destroying the economy'. The discussion in parliament yesterday was quite revealing, in this respect. Labour have no answers other than to spray money at every politically fashionable and favourable cause that grabs their attention. They have also had the strategy of going along with tax cuts supported by the tories which has worked out ok for them when we had a clown as PM, but when up against someone like Jeremy Hunt they suddenly don't look so clever.

    If you are thinking of voting labour, then you need to look past Starmer - You need to look carefully in to their MPs and what they say and believe.

    It does not matter.

    The Tories have proven themselves utterly unfit and there is no party capable of forming a government other than Labour. It is a bad way of choosing, but it is the system we have.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    kle4 said:

    Chris said:

    We could be here in a year's time speculating about how many letters Graham Brady has received about Liz Truss.

    I think she gets to May if she makes it through the week. MPs are moaning but we're no closer to a unity candidate. Heck, that Rishi is only 60/40 with members at this moment shows thty must be pretty reluctant.
    The appointment MUST bypass the membership, not just because of who they might pick but also as evidence the parliamentary party is serious about getting them permanently out of the loop.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    DougSeal said:

    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    darkage said:

    MikeL said:

    It is for these reasons that I am entirely relaxed about a labour government

    Yes, the last two weeks have certainly made it less likely that a Labour Government will do anything too reckless.

    As well as OBR scrutiny, everything that has happened is going to make Starmer much more nervous about doing anything where there is any risk that markets react adversely.
    I don't buy this at all. Starmer is skillfully holding in check all the usual instincts to spray money at every politically favoured cause amongst its ranks of deluded and deranged activist MPs, who have largely arrived on the scene against the backdrop of 'tory austerity'. It is almost as inevitable, like a phenomenon in the natural world. Starmer cannot do anything to stop it. All the public sector workers will be demanding 15% more pay etc, their unions and MPs will go along with it, and the Labour government will just agree to the requests. Can you imagine Angela Rayner etc saying no to the baying masses of aggrieved healthcare workers wanting £1 per hour more?

    It really feels like we are in the mid 1970s, Labour will get a few years to really destroy the economy, and then we finally get the necessary structural reform after that.
    How would you describe the last couple of years, and particularly the last couple of months, if not "destroying the economy?"
    There is a difference between 'destroying the economy' and 'really destroying the economy'. The discussion in parliament yesterday was quite revealing, in this respect. Labour have no answers other than to spray money at every politically fashionable and favourable cause that grabs their attention. They have also had the strategy of going along with tax cuts supported by the tories which has worked out ok for them when we had a clown as PM, but when up against someone like Jeremy Hunt they suddenly don't look so clever.

    If you are thinking of voting labour, then you need to look past Starmer - You need to look carefully in to their MPs and what they say and believe.

    Same with the Conservative Party though. The Tory Party foisted this catastrophe on us and you are saying we should only look behind Starmer? The living, breathing embodiment of the will of the ruling party is in Number 10, and you’re saying that we should give them a pass because the danger lies across the aisles? Really? The extremist party is on the Treasury benches at the moment.
    This is a fair point but I would suggest that the last 48 hours is evidence of the ancient wisdom that the Conservative party has an ability to quickly reinvent itself in the face of changing circumstances. The labour party cannot do this and gets rapidly caught off guard when something like this happens. The language used by Jeremy Hunt about 'paying our way' will be well received by ordinary voters.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Mel Stride predicting cuts to social care as part of Hunt's Austerity 2.0.

    Incredible. Have they any idea of the state of the care system at the moment?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 17,461
    They chose Johnson knowing him to be a sociopath. Johnson chose a cabinet exclusively from his cult. Johnson soiled himself so they chose his most loyal lieutenant.........

    Why are we putting up with this? In any self respecting country the revolution would already have started
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604

    DougSeal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    It was interesting following both BBC & ITV News last night because both sets of commentators described the state of shell-shock among Conservative MPs.

    There are a few on here for whom the penny has still not yet dropped. The Conservatives are going to lose the next General Election very heavily. You simply don't come back from 30% poll deficits.

    Even in 1992-7 when the economy was in stellar state, Labour still won with a lead of 12.5%.

    There's a really good article on this, which starts by quoting @MikeSmithson
    https://www.markpack.org.uk/4875/why-wasnt-it-the-economy-stupid-in-1997/

    What trashed the Conservatives in 1997 was what happened 4.5 years before on Black Wednesday. I remember that day and it was (until now) unprecedented. It wasn't just what actually happened in economic terms, it was the sense of a Government which was totally out of control. It was completely chaotic. The pound crashed, the BoE burned £10bn trying to save it, and interest rates rose twice, then fell and we ejected from the ERM. It was chaos.

    What happened that day trashed the tory's reputation for economic competence.

    Roll on quarter of a century and they've done it again, only this time far worse. The utter chaos. The total shambles. The zillion U-turns. The now-unprecedented sense of a Government in office but not in power. It is gobsmacking.

    But what is FAR FAR worse for the Conservatives this time around is that unlike 1997, the fiscal economic outlook is very grim. We are heading INTO recession, with high inflation, higher interest rates, public sector borrowing out of control, public services already on their knees now coming under further constraints, and a terrible cost of living crisis.

    Quite simply, anyone who even entertains for one second the notion that the tories can win the next election is living in cloud cuckoo land.

    The only question now is: how big a defeat will they suffer?

    Nothing in your post is wrong, including the conclusion.

    But you’ve put all your chips on one factor.

    Two other considerations are, firstly, the stronger position of Labour in 1997, with a popular charismatic leader besting the government in parliament, and a prepared policy programme which was both costed to reassure the markets and packaged into the five pledges to sell to the public.

    Starmer has some heavy lifting to do to achieve the same, and is hard to see his personality ever generating the same enthusiasm as there was for Blair.

    And, secondly, it’s an established fact that voters feel more able to invest in a centre-left government when things are improving and there’s money to spend on better services. Whereas in hard and worsening times, voters typically look to the right. Pack ignores this factor which worked against the improving economy reviving the Tories - it was the improving economy that made Labour’s promises of better schools and hospitals credible.

    As I say, I accept your conclusion, but still feel the Tories have the ability to run Labour closer than in 1997, if they get their act together (a big IF). And we’re still not seeing Labour walking by-election victories, nationally or locally, in the way that they did in the 1990s.

    The next election is to elect a government to sort out the most tremendous mess, which has never been Labour’s role. A huge challenge for Starmer’s team.
    Also, the markets have now closed off the ability to borrow to fund their manifesto. This
    is going to be raising the questions of which taxes are you going to raise to pay for it, Labour? On Newsnight last night, James Murray, Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was utterly woeful on economic policy. If he is indicative of what Labour are offering up, those opinion poll leads are going to look very transient....
    In a two man race it doesn’t matter if you’re using a walking stick when your opponent has fallen over, broken both his legs, insulted the crowd, and, it emerges, was on the piss for several weeks beforehand.
    No, but it means Labour could be a one-term administration.
    Of course Labour could, but I am sure that once in power the theme will be sorting out the Tory mess and when the following election comes back the campaign will focus on not going back to the chaos of the Tory years.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    Jonathan said:

    Will the Tories fall into line and love Sunak the high taxing double usurper?

    If he pulls the polls up and saves dozens of MPs, they may get to bear him.

    By "the Tories", I assume you mean the members. The voters either love him enough to vote for him, or they don't.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,045
    edited October 18
    If Hunt wants to be PM I assume it wouldn't be any time soon, it would be in about 12 months from now.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,048

    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    darkage said:

    MikeL said:

    It is for these reasons that I am entirely relaxed about a labour government

    Yes, the last two weeks have certainly made it less likely that a Labour Government will do anything too reckless.

    As well as OBR scrutiny, everything that has happened is going to make Starmer much more nervous about doing anything where there is any risk that markets react adversely.
    I don't buy this at all. Starmer is skillfully holding in check all the usual instincts to spray money at every politically favoured cause amongst its ranks of deluded and deranged activist MPs, who have largely arrived on the scene against the backdrop of 'tory austerity'. It is almost as inevitable, like a phenomenon in the natural world. Starmer cannot do anything to stop it. All the public sector workers will be demanding 15% more pay etc, their unions and MPs will go along with it, and the Labour government will just agree to the requests. Can you imagine Angela Rayner etc saying no to the baying masses of aggrieved healthcare workers wanting £1 per hour more?

    It really feels like we are in the mid 1970s, Labour will get a few years to really destroy the economy, and then we finally get the necessary structural reform after that.
    How would you describe the last couple of years, and particularly the last couple of months, if not "destroying the economy?"
    There is a difference between 'destroying the economy' and 'really destroying the economy'. The discussion in parliament yesterday was quite revealing, in this respect. Labour have no answers other than to spray money at every politically fashionable and favourable cause that grabs their attention. They have also had the strategy of going along with tax cuts supported by the tories which has worked out ok for them when we had a clown as PM, but when up against someone like Jeremy Hunt they suddenly don't look so clever.

    If you are thinking of voting labour, then you need to look past Starmer - You need to look carefully in to their MPs and what they say and believe.

    It does not matter.

    The Tories have proven themselves utterly unfit and there is no party capable of forming a government other than Labour. It is a bad way of choosing, but it is the system we have.
    Indeed.

    But before anyone calls Starmer the new Blair, his actions and words on Covid should be remembered. He took misstep after misstep; for example, he would have had us locked down for much longer than was necessary (even without hindsight).

    Blair and his team worked like the devil to undermine Major's government, whilst also presenting a plausible and attractive alternative. Starmer has not, and his lead is all down to the government's collapse over the last eighteen months. Which was one reason he was behind in the polls for so long.

    I do not expect Starmer's government to be very good, and especially not to try to tackle the long-term issues facing the country. If he gets a massive majority, it will be a terrible government.

    But perhaps not as terrible as Truss's.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    It was interesting following both BBC & ITV News last night because both sets of commentators described the state of shell-shock among Conservative MPs.

    There are a few on here for whom the penny has still not yet dropped. The Conservatives are going to lose the next General Election very heavily. You simply don't come back from 30% poll deficits.

    Even in 1992-7 when the economy was in stellar state, Labour still won with a lead of 12.5%.

    There's a really good article on this, which starts by quoting @MikeSmithson
    https://www.markpack.org.uk/4875/why-wasnt-it-the-economy-stupid-in-1997/

    What trashed the Conservatives in 1997 was what happened 4.5 years before on Black Wednesday. I remember that day and it was (until now) unprecedented. It wasn't just what actually happened in economic terms, it was the sense of a Government which was totally out of control. It was completely chaotic. The pound crashed, the BoE burned £10bn trying to save it, and interest rates rose twice, then fell and we ejected from the ERM. It was chaos.

    What happened that day trashed the tory's reputation for economic competence.

    Roll on quarter of a century and they've done it again, only this time far worse. The utter chaos. The total shambles. The zillion U-turns. The now-unprecedented sense of a Government in office but not in power. It is gobsmacking.

    But what is FAR FAR worse for the Conservatives this time around is that unlike 1997, the fiscal economic outlook is very grim. We are heading INTO recession, with high inflation, higher interest rates, public sector borrowing out of control, public services already on their knees now coming under further constraints, and a terrible cost of living crisis.

    Quite simply, anyone who even entertains for one second the notion that the tories can win the next election is living in cloud cuckoo land.

    The only question now is: how big a defeat will they suffer?

    Nothing in your post is wrong, including the conclusion.

    But you’ve put all your chips on one factor.

    Two other considerations are, firstly, the stronger position of Labour in 1997, with a popular charismatic leader besting the government in parliament, and a prepared policy programme which was both costed to reassure the markets and packaged into the five pledges to sell to the public.

    Starmer has some heavy lifting to do to achieve the same, and is hard to see his personality ever generating the same enthusiasm as there was for Blair.

    And, secondly, it’s an established fact that voters feel more able to invest in a centre-left government when things are improving and there’s money to spend on better services. Whereas in hard and worsening times, voters typically look to the right. Pack ignores this factor which worked against the improving economy reviving the Tories - it was the improving economy that made Labour’s promises of better schools and hospitals credible.

    As I say, I accept your conclusion, but still feel the Tories have the ability to run Labour closer than in 1997, if they get their act together (a big IF). And we’re still not seeing Labour walking by-election victories, nationally or locally, in the way that they did in the 1990s.

    The next election is to elect a government to sort out the most tremendous mess, which has never been Labour’s role. A huge challenge for Starmer’s team.
    Also, the markets have now closed off the ability to borrow to fund their manifesto. This
    is going to be raising the questions of which taxes are you going to raise to pay for it, Labour? On Newsnight last night, James Murray, Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was utterly woeful on economic policy. If he is indicative of what Labour are offering up, those opinion poll leads are going to look very transient....
    In a two man race it doesn’t matter if you’re using a walking stick when your opponent has fallen over, broken both his legs, insulted the crowd, and, it emerges, was on the piss for several weeks beforehand.
    No, but it means Labour could be a one-term administration.
    Prognostications that far ahead are pointless.
    And yet, we are daily hearing that the Tories are going to need two, three election cycles to return to power, if they even survive as one party. I take those as being pointless too.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,176
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    It was interesting following both BBC & ITV News last night because both sets of commentators described the state of shell-shock among Conservative MPs.

    There are a few on here for whom the penny has still not yet dropped. The Conservatives are going to lose the next General Election very heavily. You simply don't come back from 30% poll deficits.

    Even in 1992-7 when the economy was in stellar state, Labour still won with a lead of 12.5%.

    There's a really good article on this, which starts by quoting @MikeSmithson
    https://www.markpack.org.uk/4875/why-wasnt-it-the-economy-stupid-in-1997/

    What trashed the Conservatives in 1997 was what happened 4.5 years before on Black Wednesday. I remember that day and it was (until now) unprecedented. It wasn't just what actually happened in economic terms, it was the sense of a Government which was totally out of control. It was completely chaotic. The pound crashed, the BoE burned £10bn trying to save it, and interest rates rose twice, then fell and we ejected from the ERM. It was chaos.

    What happened that day trashed the tory's reputation for economic competence.

    Roll on quarter of a century and they've done it again, only this time far worse. The utter chaos. The total shambles. The zillion U-turns. The now-unprecedented sense of a Government in office but not in power. It is gobsmacking.

    But what is FAR FAR worse for the Conservatives this time around is that unlike 1997, the fiscal economic outlook is very grim. We are heading INTO recession, with high inflation, higher interest rates, public sector borrowing out of control, public services already on their knees now coming under further constraints, and a terrible cost of living crisis.

    Quite simply, anyone who even entertains for one second the notion that the tories can win the next election is living in cloud cuckoo land.

    The only question now is: how big a defeat will they suffer?

    Nothing in your post is wrong, including the conclusion.

    But you’ve put all your chips on one factor.

    Two other considerations are, firstly, the stronger position of Labour in 1997, with a popular charismatic leader besting the government in parliament, and a prepared policy programme which was both costed to reassure the markets and packaged into the five pledges to sell to the public.

    Starmer has some heavy lifting to do to achieve the same, and is hard to see his personality ever generating the same enthusiasm as there was for Blair.

    And, secondly, it’s an established fact that voters feel more able to invest in a centre-left government when things are improving and there’s money to spend on better services. Whereas in hard and worsening times, voters typically look to the right. Pack ignores this factor which worked against the improving economy reviving the Tories - it was the improving economy that made Labour’s promises of better schools and hospitals credible.

    As I say, I accept your conclusion, but still feel the Tories have the ability to run Labour closer than in 1997, if they get their act together (a big IF). And we’re still not seeing Labour walking by-election victories, nationally or locally, in the way that they did in the 1990s.

    The next election is to elect a government to sort out the most tremendous mess, which has never been Labour’s role. A huge challenge for Starmer’s team.
    Also, the markets have now closed off the ability to borrow to fund their manifesto. This
    is going to be raising the questions of which taxes are you going to raise to pay for it, Labour? On Newsnight last night, James Murray, Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was utterly woeful on economic policy. If he is indicative of what Labour are offering up, those opinion poll leads are going to look very transient....
    In a two man race it doesn’t matter if you’re using a walking stick when your opponent has fallen over, broken both his legs, insulted the crowd, and, it emerges, was on the piss for several weeks beforehand.
    No, but it means Labour could be a one-term administration.
    Prognostications that far ahead are pointless.
    No more so than predicting the outcome of GE2025.

    Labour will want to spend more money. So, they will need to borrow more (which the markets may not let them do) or raise taxation even higher.

    The point is that there decisions will be no easier in office than for the Tories and the breadth and depth of their team is no more impressive.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819

    Mel Stride predicting cuts to social care as part of Hunt's Austerity 2.0.

    Incredible. Have they any idea of the state of the care system at the moment?

    Yes but they don't grasp a simple point.

    Social care while expensive is a lot cheaper* than a hospital bed

    * there are some minor exceptions here in home care in very rural settings but not many and even then, it's a close run.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,844
    Ishmael_Z said:

    kle4 said:

    Chris said:

    We could be here in a year's time speculating about how many letters Graham Brady has received about Liz Truss.

    I think she gets to May if she makes it through the week. MPs are moaning but we're no closer to a unity candidate. Heck, that Rishi is only 60/40 with members at this moment shows thty must be pretty reluctant.
    The appointment MUST bypass the membership, not just because of who they might pick but also as evidence the parliamentary party is serious about getting them permanently out of the loop.
    I'd put it more strongly. It is the duty of MPs to chose the PM. Outsourcing responsibility to their fan club is a crime against the constitution.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,121
    Sense I’m getting is that Liz is a goner, but until they have near unanimity on what a replacement looks like they won’t be able to move. The clock is ticking, do Tory MPs really want this farce to continue into another weekend?
  • rjkrjk Posts: 60
    edited October 18
    DJ41 said:

    DJ41 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.

    So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.

    But Zahawi is the COO...

    Stop giggling at the back
    ^^^ Did the mods not see this racist post?
    The mods are well known for being racist gammons.
    Calling a non-white man a "COO..." seems to be considered here, including by the moderators, to be nothing more than harmless banter.

    Goodbye, PB. I won't be posting here any more.
    Taz said:

    DJ41 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.

    So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.

    But Zahawi is the COO...

    Stop giggling at the back
    ^^^ Did the mods not see this racist post?
    How is it racist ?
    ScottXP was calling Nadhim Zahawi a coon. If you don't know why that's racist, I'd suggest you ask someone what racism is. Get a clue.
    He's referring to the fact that Zahawi has described himself as the "chief operating officer" or "COO" of the Truss government. Perhaps it is his creative re-interpretation of the role of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? It seems like the kind of self-important pomposity that might cause a reasonable person to giggle.

    Source: https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1579391689361616896
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,286
    James Heappey tells @TimesRadio
    that, when the original mini-budget was revealed to cabinet, not a single person thought there would be any problems as a result of it or raised any concerns. That is quite the notion.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/StigAbell/status/1582260533688139777

    Presumably after it was announced publicly, as they weren't fully consulted in advance ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,621
    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    It was interesting following both BBC & ITV News last night because both sets of commentators described the state of shell-shock among Conservative MPs.

    There are a few on here for whom the penny has still not yet dropped. The Conservatives are going to lose the next General Election very heavily. You simply don't come back from 30% poll deficits.

    Even in 1992-7 when the economy was in stellar state, Labour still won with a lead of 12.5%.

    There's a really good article on this, which starts by quoting @MikeSmithson
    https://www.markpack.org.uk/4875/why-wasnt-it-the-economy-stupid-in-1997/

    What trashed the Conservatives in 1997 was what happened 4.5 years before on Black Wednesday. I remember that day and it was (until now) unprecedented. It wasn't just what actually happened in economic terms, it was the sense of a Government which was totally out of control. It was completely chaotic. The pound crashed, the BoE burned £10bn trying to save it, and interest rates rose twice, then fell and we ejected from the ERM. It was chaos.

    What happened that day trashed the tory's reputation for economic competence.

    Roll on quarter of a century and they've done it again, only this time far worse. The utter chaos. The total shambles. The zillion U-turns. The now-unprecedented sense of a Government in office but not in power. It is gobsmacking.

    But what is FAR FAR worse for the Conservatives this time around is that unlike 1997, the fiscal economic outlook is very grim. We are heading INTO recession, with high inflation, higher interest rates, public sector borrowing out of control, public services already on their knees now coming under further constraints, and a terrible cost of living crisis.

    Quite simply, anyone who even entertains for one second the notion that the tories can win the next election is living in cloud cuckoo land.

    The only question now is: how big a defeat will they suffer?

    Nothing in your post is wrong, including the conclusion.

    But you’ve put all your chips on one factor.

    Two other considerations are, firstly, the stronger position of Labour in 1997, with a popular charismatic leader besting the government in parliament, and a prepared policy programme which was both costed to reassure the markets and packaged into the five pledges to sell to the public.

    Starmer has some heavy lifting to do to achieve the same, and is hard to see his personality ever generating the same enthusiasm as there was for Blair.

    And, secondly, it’s an established fact that voters feel more able to invest in a centre-left government when things are improving and there’s money to spend on better services. Whereas in hard and worsening times, voters typically look to the right. Pack ignores this factor which worked against the improving economy reviving the Tories - it was the improving economy that made Labour’s promises of better schools and hospitals credible.

    As I say, I accept your conclusion, but still feel the Tories have the ability to run Labour closer than in 1997, if they get their act together (a big IF). And we’re still not seeing Labour walking by-election victories, nationally or locally, in the way that they did in the 1990s.

    The next election is to elect a government to sort out the most tremendous mess, which has never been Labour’s role. A huge challenge for Starmer’s team.
    Also, the markets have now closed off the ability to borrow to fund their manifesto. This
    is going to be raising the questions of which taxes are you going to raise to pay for it, Labour? On Newsnight last night, James Murray, Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was utterly woeful on economic policy. If he is indicative of what Labour are offering up, those opinion poll leads are going to look very transient....
    In a two man race it doesn’t matter if you’re using a walking stick when your opponent has fallen over, broken both his legs, insulted the crowd, and, it emerges, was on the piss for several weeks beforehand.
    No, but it means Labour could be a one-term administration.
    Prognostications that far ahead are pointless.
    Was Ted Heath's government a half century ago the last time we had a 1 term government?

    Similarly it has been rare in US politics too. Trump, Bush Sr and Carter being the only ones post war.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,365
    darkage said:

    DougSeal said:

    darkage said:

    kyf_100 said:

    darkage said:

    MikeL said:

    It is for these reasons that I am entirely relaxed about a labour government

    Yes, the last two weeks have certainly made it less likely that a Labour Government will do anything too reckless.

    As well as OBR scrutiny, everything that has happened is going to make Starmer much more nervous about doing anything where there is any risk that markets react adversely.
    I don't buy this at all. Starmer is skillfully holding in check all the usual instincts to spray money at every politically favoured cause amongst its ranks of deluded and deranged activist MPs, who have largely arrived on the scene against the backdrop of 'tory austerity'. It is almost as inevitable, like a phenomenon in the natural world. Starmer cannot do anything to stop it. All the public sector workers will be demanding 15% more pay etc, their unions and MPs will go along with it, and the Labour government will just agree to the requests. Can you imagine Angela Rayner etc saying no to the baying masses of aggrieved healthcare workers wanting £1 per hour more?

    It really feels like we are in the mid 1970s, Labour will get a few years to really destroy the economy, and then we finally get the necessary structural reform after that.
    How would you describe the last couple of years, and particularly the last couple of months, if not "destroying the economy?"
    There is a difference between 'destroying the economy' and 'really destroying the economy'. The discussion in parliament yesterday was quite revealing, in this respect. Labour have no answers other than to spray money at every politically fashionable and favourable cause that grabs their attention. They have also had the strategy of going along with tax cuts supported by the tories which has worked out ok for them when we had a clown as PM, but when up against someone like Jeremy Hunt they suddenly don't look so clever.

    If you are thinking of voting labour, then you need to look past Starmer - You need to look carefully in to their MPs and what they say and believe.

    Same with the Conservative Party though. The Tory Party foisted this catastrophe on us and you are saying we should only look behind Starmer? The living, breathing embodiment of the will of the ruling party is in Number 10, and you’re saying that we should give them a pass because the danger lies across the aisles? Really? The extremist party is on the Treasury benches at the moment.
    This is a fair point but I would suggest that the last 48 hours is evidence of the ancient wisdom that the Conservative party has an ability to quickly reinvent itself in the face of changing circumstances. The labour party cannot do this and gets rapidly caught off guard when something like this happens. The language used by Jeremy Hunt about 'paying our way' will be well received by ordinary voters.
    “Ancient wisdom” my arse. “Ancient wisdom” suggests that the Conservative Party is the party of economic competence, pragmatism,and respect for institutions. If the last 6 or more years has shown anything it’s that “ancient” or “received” wisdom is not worth the paper it (isn’t) written on.
  • Roger said:

    They chose Johnson knowing him to be a sociopath. Johnson chose a cabinet exclusively from his cult. Johnson soiled himself so they chose his most loyal lieutenant.........

    Why are we putting up with this? In any self respecting country the revolution would already have started

    In any self respecting country the answer is delivered through the ballot box which happens in 2 years
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604

    Jonathan said:

    Will the Tories fall into line and love Sunak the high taxing double usurper?

    If he pulls the polls up and saves dozens of MPs, they may get to bear him.

    By "the Tories", I assume you mean the members. The voters either love him enough to vote for him, or they don't.
    I mean mps and members, not the two current remaining Tory voters.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    DJ41 said:

    DJ41 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.

    So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.

    But Zahawi is the COO...

    Stop giggling at the back
    ^^^ Did the mods not see this racist post?
    The mods are well known for being racist gammons.
    Calling a non-white man a "COO..." seems to be considered here, including by the moderators, to be nothing more than harmless banter.

    Goodbye, PB. I won't be posting here any more.
    Taz said:

    DJ41 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    So Ben Wallace becomes PM but in a Chairman of the Board type of way (but focussing on Ukraine) but having strong CEO, COO, and CFO.

    So Sunak, Mordaunt, and Hunt.

    But Zahawi is the COO...

    Stop giggling at the back
    ^^^ Did the mods not see this racist post?
    How is it racist ?
    ScottXP was calling Nadhim Zahawi a coon. If you don't know why that's racist, I'd suggest you ask someone what racism is. Get a clue.
    It's weird how your mind jumped straight to that word. I don't think I've heard or seen its use in the UK.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,045

    Mel Stride predicting cuts to social care as part of Hunt's Austerity 2.0.

    Incredible. Have they any idea of the state of the care system at the moment?

    This is what happens when you run out of money.
  • eekeek Posts: 21,819

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kle4 said:

    Chris said:

    We could be here in a year's time speculating about how many letters Graham Brady has received about Liz Truss.

    I think she gets to May if she makes it through the week. MPs are moaning but we're no closer to a unity candidate. Heck, that Rishi is only 60/40 with members at this moment shows thty must be pretty reluctant.
    The appointment MUST bypass the membership, not just because of who they might pick but also as evidence the parliamentary party is serious about getting them permanently out of the loop.
    I'd put it more strongly. It is the duty of MPs to chose the PM. Outsourcing responsibility to their fan club is a crime against the constitution.
    +1 - has any leader elected by the membership actually worked out.

    Given the list is

    IDS
    Cameron (against Davis so not exactly a difficult choice)
    Bozo
    Truss

    And on the Labour side
    Corbyn
    SKS (against RLB and Nandy so again not a difficult choice)
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604

    DougSeal said:

    DougSeal said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    It was interesting following both BBC & ITV News last night because both sets of commentators described the state of shell-shock among Conservative MPs.

    There are a few on here for whom the penny has still not yet dropped. The Conservatives are going to lose the next General Election very heavily. You simply don't come back from 30% poll deficits.

    Even in 1992-7 when the economy was in stellar state, Labour still won with a lead of 12.5%.

    There's a really good article on this, which starts by quoting @MikeSmithson
    https://www.markpack.org.uk/4875/why-wasnt-it-the-economy-stupid-in-1997/

    What trashed the Conservatives in 1997 was what happened 4.5 years before on Black Wednesday. I remember that day and it was (until now) unprecedented. It wasn't just what actually happened in economic terms, it was the sense of a Government which was totally out of control. It was completely chaotic. The pound crashed, the BoE burned £10bn trying to save it, and interest rates rose twice, then fell and we ejected from the ERM. It was chaos.

    What happened that day trashed the tory's reputation for economic competence.

    Roll on quarter of a century and they've done it again, only this time far worse. The utter chaos. The total shambles. The zillion U-turns. The now-unprecedented sense of a Government in office but not in power. It is gobsmacking.

    But what is FAR FAR worse for the Conservatives this time around is that unlike 1997, the fiscal economic outlook is very grim. We are heading INTO recession, with high inflation, higher interest rates, public sector borrowing out of control, public services already on their knees now coming under further constraints, and a terrible cost of living crisis.

    Quite simply, anyone who even entertains for one second the notion that the tories can win the next election is living in cloud cuckoo land.

    The only question now is: how big a defeat will they suffer?

    Nothing in your post is wrong, including the conclusion.

    But you’ve put all your chips on one factor.

    Two other considerations are, firstly, the stronger position of Labour in 1997, with a popular charismatic leader besting the government in parliament, and a prepared policy programme which was both costed to reassure the markets and packaged into the five pledges to sell to the public.

    Starmer has some heavy lifting to do to achieve the same, and is hard to see his personality ever generating the same enthusiasm as there was for Blair.

    And, secondly, it’s an established fact that voters feel more able to invest in a centre-left government when things are improving and there’s money to spend on better services. Whereas in hard and worsening times, voters typically look to the right. Pack ignores this factor which worked against the improving economy reviving the Tories - it was the improving economy that made Labour’s promises of better schools and hospitals credible.

    As I say, I accept your conclusion, but still feel the Tories have the ability to run Labour closer than in 1997, if they get their act together (a big IF). And we’re still not seeing Labour walking by-election victories, nationally or locally, in the way that they did in the 1990s.

    The next election is to elect a government to sort out the most tremendous mess, which has never been Labour’s role. A huge challenge for Starmer’s team.
    Also, the markets have now closed off the ability to borrow to fund their manifesto. This
    is going to be raising the questions of which taxes are you going to raise to pay for it, Labour? On Newsnight last night, James Murray, Shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was utterly woeful on economic policy. If he is indicative of what Labour are offering up, those opinion poll leads are going to look very transient....
    In a two man race it doesn’t matter if you’re using a walking stick when your opponent has fallen over, broken both his legs, insulted the crowd, and, it emerges, was on the piss for several weeks beforehand.
    No, but it means Labour could be a one-term administration.
    Prognostications that far ahead are pointless.
    No more so than predicting the outcome of GE2025.

    Labour will want to spend more money. So, they will need to borrow more (which the markets may not let them do) or raise taxation even higher.

    The point is that there decisions will be no easier in office than for the Tories and the breadth and depth of their team is no more impressive.
    They have one advantage, they will not be the cause of the damage.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,621
    edited October 18

    Mel Stride predicting cuts to social care as part of Hunt's Austerity 2.0.

    Incredible. Have they any idea of the state of the care system at the moment?

    I don't think so, though there could be a shift back to user rather than state pays. A wealth tax in effect, administered by the private sector and the fickle finger of fate.

    Hunt has many flaws, but he does actually understand the NHS, as shown in his recent book "Zero".
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,808

    kle4 said:

    Chris said:

    We could be here in a year's time speculating about how many letters Graham Brady has received about Liz Truss.

    I think she gets to May if she makes it through the week. MPs are moaning but we're no closer to a unity candidate. Heck, that Rishi is only 60/40 with members at this moment shows thty must be pretty reluctant.
    The week? She has to make it through PMQs first.

    Unless she produces a performance the likes of which we haven't seen in decades. it will be her last.
    Yes. It’s now known, I believe, that her important engagement yesterday was upstairs with Brady. It’s fairly obvious what that would have been about; anything trivial and she’d have met him later.
This discussion has been closed.