Howdy, Stranger!

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

As they say the “optics” don’t look good – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 3 in General
imageAs they say the “optics” don’t look good – politicalbetting.com

Generally speaking if all the front pages are about one specific political story then it is not good for one side or the other. And so it is this morning.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,467
    Braverman committed email crime, this one isn't Truss's fault apart from the fact that she gave Braverman the job in the first place.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,313
    Cant help but wonder whether a VONC could be called and I sense some rage among a (unknown) number of Conservative MPs... is it possible that enough could make it fall? I genuinely am wondering,
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,605
    It’s still totally unclear how the government unleashed today’s fiasco.

    Why the hell did they make this a 3-line whip?
    They could, for example, have instructed Tories to abstain.

    Why did Liz fire Suella today of all days? What was the security breach, and how serious is it really?

    What on earth was going on between Downing Street and the Whip’s Office? Where, for example, is the Chief of Staff? You know, the one who moonlights as a lobbyist for foreign dictators?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,863
    Just had a soak in the lovely Glenwood Hot Springs, under the desert night sky

    All intensely relaxing… apart from the old couple next to me, calmly discussing nuclear war and “how to avoid radiation”
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,605
    Leon said:

    Just had a soak in the lovely Glenwood Hot Springs, under the desert night sky

    All intensely relaxing… apart from the old couple next to me, calmly discussing nuclear war and “how to avoid radiation”

    I wonder who got them onto that topic.

    Anyway, it’s all about Norwegian pipelines on the twitters tonight.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,863

    Leon said:

    Just had a soak in the lovely Glenwood Hot Springs, under the desert night sky

    All intensely relaxing… apart from the old couple next to me, calmly discussing nuclear war and “how to avoid radiation”

    I wonder who got them onto that topic.

    Anyway, it’s all about Norwegian pipelines on the twitters tonight.
    Can’t see anything about Norway?

  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,863
    This site looks ludicrously mad, but some of this shit also makes sense

  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,863
    I was going to edit my last comment, but on reflection: it is perfect
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,313
    When Truss goes.... will she be given the option of handing out peerages,? (for the fourth time in 6 years), it certainly makes the Lords look rotten IMO.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465

    When Truss goes.... will she be given the option of handing out peerages,? (for the fourth time in 6 years), it certainly makes the Lords look rotten IMO.

    It's not a requirement but I guess she will get the choice.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465
    The papers cannot seem to decide if Braverman quit or was sacked.

    I know it can be a grey area, with many a 'You asked for my resignation and I so I give it' type occasions. I don't have her letter to hand so not sure of the truth here - given there was at least a prompting incident I'm guessing it was a sacking.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465
    edited October 20
    Worth remembering, before Truss and apologists grab hold of the sort of point OGH makes about MP support, that declared MP support by the end of the contest was in her favour.

    A spreadsheet from Guido recorded 158 having publicly backed her. Short a majority, yes, but not by much and with undeclared MPs she might well have had that majority in reality. Boris was one and we know he backed her over Sunak for example.

    So MPs were prepared to give her a shot. She took that too much for granted though. It wasnt a Corbyn situation.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSLuKhnwoPU93oTC4NpHD17MncMTuluq76eOmjhhahiepU6UNWEV1Hy-qsVHCEdfEvwaRNtGIOSc1Ku/pubhtml?gid=1717238762&single=true

    Admittedly public support is no guarantee they actually did support her rather than just backing the clear winner - worth remembering though the other leadership candidates mostly backed her over Rishi too.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,927
    kle4 said:

    Worth remembering, before Truss and apologists grab hold of the sort of point OGH makes about MP support, that declared MP support by the end of the contest was in her favour.

    A spreadsheet from Guido recorded 158 having publicly backed her. Short a majority, yes, but not by much and with undeclared MPs she might well have had that majority in reality. Boris was one and we know he backed her over Sunak for example.

    So MPs were prepared to give her a shot. She took that too much for granted though. It wasnt a Corbyn situation.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSLuKhnwoPU93oTC4NpHD17MncMTuluq76eOmjhhahiepU6UNWEV1Hy-qsVHCEdfEvwaRNtGIOSc1Ku/pubhtml?gid=1717238762&single=true

    Admittedly public support is no guarantee they actually did support her rather than just backing the clear winner - worth remembering though the other leadership candidates mostly backed her over Rishi too.

    But she only scraped into the Final 2 and I think Mordaunt supporters would have broken at least 50% Sunak if they had thought he could win.

    If the Final had been decided by MPs I think it's inconceivable Truss would have got enough Mordaunt supporters to win.

    If Truss resigned today and Brady announced the next contest would be decided by MPs alone I reckon Sunak would instantly go below 1.5 on Betfair.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465
    MikeL said:

    kle4 said:

    Worth remembering, before Truss and apologists grab hold of the sort of point OGH makes about MP support, that declared MP support by the end of the contest was in her favour.

    A spreadsheet from Guido recorded 158 having publicly backed her. Short a majority, yes, but not by much and with undeclared MPs she might well have had that majority in reality. Boris was one and we know he backed her over Sunak for example.

    So MPs were prepared to give her a shot. She took that too much for granted though. It wasnt a Corbyn situation.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSLuKhnwoPU93oTC4NpHD17MncMTuluq76eOmjhhahiepU6UNWEV1Hy-qsVHCEdfEvwaRNtGIOSc1Ku/pubhtml?gid=1717238762&single=true

    Admittedly public support is no guarantee they actually did support her rather than just backing the clear winner - worth remembering though the other leadership candidates mostly backed her over Rishi too.

    But she only scraped into the Final 2 and I think Mordaunt supporters would have broken at least 50% Sunak if they had thought he could win.

    If the Final had been decided by MPs I think it's inconceivable Truss would have got enough Mordaunt supporters to win.

    If Truss resigned today and Brady announced the next contest would be decided by MPs alone I reckon Sunak would instantly go below 1.5 on Betfair.
    There's a case to be made that even for a member contest the third place supporters should vote again so it is clear how MP support breaks down, since it's true it was touch and go who would be in the final two. We can speculate Mordaunts backers would not have be her her by enough to win.

    Nevertheless, such evidence we have is that in a Rishi/Liz contest more MPs stated they were for Liz than Rishi. She was not the first choice of many, but in the final contest she got the nod.

    So she cannot use the excuse that the MPs never gave her a chance.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,225
    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,365
    kle4 said:

    When Truss goes.... will she be given the option of handing out peerages,? (for the fourth time in 6 years), it certainly makes the Lords look rotten IMO.

    It's not a requirement but I guess she will get the choice.
    If rumours are to be believed, LizT blocked a number of MPs nominated for peerages by Boris, Nadine Dorries being the most obvious example, so it is possible they would be re-nominated by Truss, even before she gets on to her own friends and supporters.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,927
    edited October 20
    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Presumably she's going to try to stop all those MPs voting in a No Confidence vote.

    But as more than 40 Con MPs didn't support the Government, if she removes the whip from all of them then the Conservatives no longer have a majority.

    The whole episode makes it even more breathtaking that Brady hasn't already acted.

    Brady is as incompetent as Truss. He should not allow Truss to singlehandedly destroy the Conservative Party.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,365
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Just had a soak in the lovely Glenwood Hot Springs, under the desert night sky

    All intensely relaxing… apart from the old couple next to me, calmly discussing nuclear war and “how to avoid radiation”

    I wonder who got them onto that topic.

    Anyway, it’s all about Norwegian pipelines on the twitters tonight.
    Can’t see anything about Norway?

    Not pipelines but...

    British-Russian son of Putin ally arrested for flying drones near gas terminal
    Norway has blamed 'foreign intelligence' for mysterious air activity in recent weeks

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/10/19/british-russian-son-putin-ally-arrested-flying-drones-near-gas/ (£££)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465
    edited October 20
    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Well that's just plain dumb - how can you punish MPs who saw conflicting reports if it was a confidence vote?

    Even if it's a ploy as MikeL suggests re a vote of no confidence it would be too damaging.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,882
    Let me add The Sun to the frame. Not a newspaper to which I often refer. But this is their take on it:

  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,882
    I don't think the markets are going to look good this morning and sterling has had another bad 24 hours.

    We need a General Election but there's no real mechanism by which to do so. Unless 40 tory MPs decide to self-immolate.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,313
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Well that's just plain dumb - how can you punish MPs who saw conflicting reports if it was a confidence vote?

    Even if it's a ploy as MikeL suggests re a vote of no confidence it would be too damaging.
    and of course the 2019 Conservative manifesto was very clear on opposing fracking..... so although they did not vote with the govt (very much on naughty step) Fracking itself has no mandate.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,048

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Well that's just plain dumb - how can you punish MPs who saw conflicting reports if it was a confidence vote?

    Even if it's a ploy as MikeL suggests re a vote of no confidence it would be too damaging.
    and of course the 2019 Conservative manifesto was very clear on opposing fracking..... so although they did not vote with the govt (very much on naughty step) Fracking itself has no mandate.
    I am on the fence about fracking - I have not looked into it deeply, and see conflicting views on here and elsewhere from people whose views I trust.

    But given the energy crisis that has enveloped us, I think any 2019 manifesto commitments about energy can be broken. Manifestos are for ordinary times, and with respect to energy, these are not ordinary times.
  • Suppose LizT resigns today.

    Normally she'd stay on in a caretaker capacity until a new PM was elected.

    I can't see that happening unless everyone agrees to play nice for however long it takes -- unlikely.

    Truss would have to see the King to resign (still feels odd saying "King" there... not least because I want to clarify I don't mean Elvis!). Who would Charles send for? Would he rely on Truss's advice? Would Coffey be in with a shout of being caretaker PM simply because she's Deputy right now?

    Even if there's behind-the-scenes agreement in the Tory party that Sunak (or whoever) steps in as caretaker, what does Charles do if Truss recommends someone else?

    There's a strong case here for a written Constitution...!!
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,753
    edited October 20

    When Truss goes.... will she be given the option of handing out peerages,? (for the fourth time in 6 years), it certainly makes the Lords look rotten IMO.

    The Lords has been a disgrace for decades - not sure even that can make it look worse, can it?

    Its only role is to frustrate democracy and it doesn't even do that very well.

    I think it outlived its usefulness once people stopped believing in the hereditary principle, more than a century ago.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Well that's just plain dumb - how can you punish MPs who saw conflicting reports if it was a confidence vote?

    Even if it's a ploy as MikeL suggests re a vote of no confidence it would be too damaging.
    and of course the 2019 Conservative manifesto was very clear on opposing fracking..... so although they did not vote with the govt (very much on naughty step) Fracking itself has no mandate.
    I am on the fence about fracking - I have not looked into it deeply, and see conflicting views on here and elsewhere from people whose views I trust.

    But given the energy crisis that has enveloped us, I think any 2019 manifesto commitments about energy can be broken. Manifestos are for ordinary times, and with respect to energy, these are not ordinary times.
    I agree, but politically its not a period in which this particular PM has the capital to enforce such a thing on her reluctant backbenchers. Its surprising the rebellion was not higher to be honest.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,882
    edited October 20

    Suppose LizT resigns today.

    Normally she'd stay on in a caretaker capacity until a new PM was elected.

    I can't see that happening unless everyone agrees to play nice for however long it takes -- unlikely.

    Truss would have to see the King to resign (still feels odd saying "King" there... not least because I want to clarify I don't mean Elvis!). Who would Charles send for? Would he rely on Truss's advice? Would Coffey be in with a shout of being caretaker PM simply because she's Deputy right now?

    Even if there's behind-the-scenes agreement in the Tory party that Sunak (or whoever) steps in as caretaker, what does Charles do if Truss recommends someone else?

    There's a strong case here for a written Constitution...!!

    Yes to the last bit.

    But listening to the political commentators, the biggest problem is that the tories are so riven and ripped apart that they cannot agree to any unifying candidate. Hard as it is to believe, we could be back in a similar situation under a different leader in 2 months time.

    We need a General Election but there's no mechanism by which to get one, so far as we know.

    p.s. It's easy to blame one faction over another. Boris clearly takes some of the blame for downing the most competent candidate, Rishi, out of sheer spite. But the ERG are fucking nutjobs who have wrecked their party and this country. Sorry but there's no simpler or more accurate way of putting it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,465
    Fishing said:

    When Truss goes.... will she be given the option of handing out peerages,? (for the fourth time in 6 years), it certainly makes the Lords look rotten IMO.

    The Lords has been a disgrace for decades - not sure even that can make it look worse, can it?

    Its only role is to frustrate democracy and it doesn't even do that very well.

    I think it outlived its usefulness once people stopped believing in the hereditary principle, more than a century ago.
    I think a second chamber which can slow and revise legislation is a good thing, even if only to make the government think a bit harder.

    The issue is composition and status.

    Whilst I'm sanguine about an appointed chamber if it is improved (no ex MPs or donors, minimum attendance etc) I think Labour will follow through finally. The current set up, with hereditaries still there, was not meant to be the final position, though it is hilarious its lasted this long.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,284
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Well that's just plain dumb - how can you punish MPs who saw conflicting reports if it was a confidence vote?

    Even if it's a ploy as MikeL suggests re a vote of no confidence it would be too damaging.
    Is she going to remove the whip from herself for not voting, then ?
    Just nuts.
  • Yup

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,284
    Russian forces are also setting information conditions to conduct a false-flag attack on the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant and may believe that breaching the dam could cover their retreat from the right bank of the Dnipro River & prevent/delay Ukrainian advances across it.
    https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1582938879329722369
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,048
    In other news: ways to make yourself look guilty.

    "Deputy envoy of Russia to UN denies export of Iranian drone to Russia, threatens to review relationship with UN secretary office, if UN send experts to study Russian drones in Ukraine "

    https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1582845062957785088
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 766

    Suppose LizT resigns today.

    Normally she'd stay on in a caretaker capacity until a new PM was elected.

    I can't see that happening unless everyone agrees to play nice for however long it takes -- unlikely.

    Truss would have to see the King to resign (still feels odd saying "King" there... not least because I want to clarify I don't mean Elvis!). Who would Charles send for? Would he rely on Truss's advice? Would Coffey be in with a shout of being caretaker PM simply because she's Deputy right now?

    Even if there's behind-the-scenes agreement in the Tory party that Sunak (or whoever) steps in as caretaker, what does Charles do if Truss recommends someone else?

    There's a strong case here for a written Constitution...!!

    Careful what you wish for - If we had a written constitution the Deputy PM would take over -Thérèse Coffey anyone?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,284
    If anyone is regularly taking turmeric supplements, you might want to reconsider.

    https://twitter.com/theliverdr/status/1582713925669617664
    The United States Drug Induced Liver Injury Network (DILIN) just published their series on turmeric related severe liver injury.

    A 🧵 on why this paper is useful, in the context of turmeric as a dietary supplement and
    why considering food as medicine is a stupid thing to do…
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,048
    kle4 said:

    Fishing said:

    When Truss goes.... will she be given the option of handing out peerages,? (for the fourth time in 6 years), it certainly makes the Lords look rotten IMO.

    The Lords has been a disgrace for decades - not sure even that can make it look worse, can it?

    Its only role is to frustrate democracy and it doesn't even do that very well.

    I think it outlived its usefulness once people stopped believing in the hereditary principle, more than a century ago.
    I think a second chamber which can slow and revise legislation is a good thing, even if only to make the government think a bit harder.

    The issue is composition and status.

    Whilst I'm sanguine about an appointed chamber if it is improved (no ex MPs or donors, minimum attendance etc) I think Labour will follow through finally. The current set up, with hereditaries still there, was not meant to be the final position, though it is hilarious its lasted this long.
    As ever, you need to look at the role the HoL performs. Firstly, is it needed? If not, get rid of it. If it is, then what is the best way for it to perform that role?

    I'd strongly argue that the HoC and governments sometimes gets new legislation wrong, and therefore a revising chamber *is* necessary. So then the question becomes one of composition. I *really* dislike an elected second chamber; IMV many of the problems with the HoL comes from the party-political influences within it.

    Stuff the HoL with experts in various areas and let them feed in to the HoC's work. Make it more professional as well.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,453

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Well that's just plain dumb - how can you punish MPs who saw conflicting reports if it was a confidence vote?

    Even if it's a ploy as MikeL suggests re a vote of no confidence it would be too damaging.
    and of course the 2019 Conservative manifesto was very clear on opposing fracking..... so although they did not vote with the govt (very much on naughty step) Fracking itself has no mandate.
    I am on the fence about fracking - I have not looked into it deeply, and see conflicting views on here and elsewhere from people whose views I trust.

    But given the energy crisis that has enveloped us, I think any 2019 manifesto commitments about energy can be broken. Manifestos are for ordinary times, and with respect to energy, these are not ordinary times.
    There are two problems with fracking:

    1. Despite a dozen or two wells having been drilled and fracked, no commercial shale gas deposits have yet been found. That may change, but as of now, it's exploration only.

    2. Should commercial quantities of gas be discovered, then exploitation of that resource will be disruptive to the local residents.

    My view is that the government should be very open to private firms seeking to discover if there are commercial tight gas formations. If there are, then there will need to be a serious discussion about how to get local buy in.

    But there's no point in putting the cart before the horse. Let's find out if there is gas to extract first. (And there the signs are not particularly hopeful)

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Binding opposition motions are always effectively confidence votes as Starmer would gain control of Parliaments business should it succeed.
    That's the fact of the matter and MPs from whatever side should know enough Erskine May to realise.
    Whoever from No 10 sent the late memo out that it wasn't should probably be sacked.
    The minister doing the summing up should also have emphasised this and not needed direction from No 10. Which was wrongly given.
    No-one comes out with any particular credit from the whole unedifying mess but the No 10 official (And perhaps their boss ;) ) need to go.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,922
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Well that's just plain dumb - how can you punish MPs who saw conflicting reports if it was a confidence vote?

    Even if it's a ploy as MikeL suggests re a vote of no confidence it would be too damaging.
    and of course the 2019 Conservative manifesto was very clear on opposing fracking..... so although they did not vote with the govt (very much on naughty step) Fracking itself has no mandate.
    I am on the fence about fracking - I have not looked into it deeply, and see conflicting views on here and elsewhere from people whose views I trust.

    But given the energy crisis that has enveloped us, I think any 2019 manifesto commitments about energy can be broken. Manifestos are for ordinary times, and with respect to energy, these are not ordinary times.
    There are two problems with fracking:

    1. Despite a dozen or two wells having been drilled and fracked, no commercial shale gas deposits have yet been found. That may change, but as of now, it's exploration only.

    2. Should commercial quantities of gas be discovered, then exploitation of that resource will be disruptive to the local residents.

    My view is that the government should be very open to private firms seeking to discover if there are commercial tight gas formations. If there are, then there will need to be a serious discussion about how to get local buy in.

    But there's no point in putting the cart before the horse. Let's find out if there is gas to extract first. (And there the signs are not particularly hopeful)

    An obvious problem for society here is that with limited liability companies and low chances of success, there is potential for firms to do damage to the environment but if they don't find enough gas not be around to pay for cleaning things up.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204

    kle4 said:

    Fishing said:

    When Truss goes.... will she be given the option of handing out peerages,? (for the fourth time in 6 years), it certainly makes the Lords look rotten IMO.

    The Lords has been a disgrace for decades - not sure even that can make it look worse, can it?

    Its only role is to frustrate democracy and it doesn't even do that very well.

    I think it outlived its usefulness once people stopped believing in the hereditary principle, more than a century ago.
    I think a second chamber which can slow and revise legislation is a good thing, even if only to make the government think a bit harder.

    The issue is composition and status.

    Whilst I'm sanguine about an appointed chamber if it is improved (no ex MPs or donors, minimum attendance etc) I think Labour will follow through finally. The current set up, with hereditaries still there, was not meant to be the final position, though it is hilarious its lasted this long.
    As ever, you need to look at the role the HoL performs. Firstly, is it needed? If not, get rid of it. If it is, then what is the best way for it to perform that role?

    I'd strongly argue that the HoC and governments sometimes gets new legislation wrong, and therefore a revising chamber *is* necessary. So then the question becomes one of composition. I *really* dislike an elected second chamber; IMV many of the problems with the HoL comes from the party-political influences within it.

    Stuff the HoL with experts in various areas and let them feed in to the HoC's work. Make it more professional as well.
    I would say that the HoL is one of these things that isn't perfect, but works ok at curbing the most stupid laws.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Well that's just plain dumb - how can you punish MPs who saw conflicting reports if it was a confidence vote?

    Even if it's a ploy as MikeL suggests re a vote of no confidence it would be too damaging.
    Is she going to remove the whip from herself for not voting, then ?
    Just nuts.
    She did vote according to the official record
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    Braverman is on manoeuvres, right?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,284
    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Binding opposition motions are always effectively confidence votes as Starmer would gain control of Parliaments business should it succeed.
    That's the fact of the matter and MPs from whatever side should know enough Erskine May to realise.
    Whoever from No 10 sent the late memo out that it wasn't should probably be sacked.
    The minister doing the summing up should also have emphasised this and not needed direction from No 10. Which was wrongly given.
    No-one comes out with any particular credit from the whole unedifying mess but the No 10 official (And perhaps their boss ;) ) need to go.
    The boss didn’t vote.
    She is way beyond a joke.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Binding opposition motions are always effectively confidence votes as Starmer would gain control of Parliaments business should it succeed.
    That's the fact of the matter and MPs from whatever side should know enough Erskine May to realise.
    Whoever from No 10 sent the late memo out that it wasn't should probably be sacked.
    The minister doing the summing up should also have emphasised this and not needed direction from No 10. Which was wrongly given.
    No-one comes out with any particular credit from the whole unedifying mess but the No 10 official (And perhaps their boss ;) ) need to go.
    The boss didn’t vote.
    She is way beyond a joke.
    Ever since Erskine May was replaced by Erskine Johnson parliamentary conventions no longer apply.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    Heathener said:

    I don't think the markets are going to look good this morning and sterling has had another bad 24 hours.

    We need a General Election but there's no real mechanism by which to do so. Unless 40 tory MPs decide to self-immolate.

    In pre-trading, things are holding up. The markets might be expecting that now she will have to go, and soon?
  • kle4 said:

    Yup

    No one but Brexit Britain has ever had a political crisis before?
    Don’t think he’s saying that. He’s merely pointing out this is a prime example of self-inflicted damage.

    It must hurt Leavers, seeing their foolish project finally hitting the buffers of reality. It’s driven the Tories insane, such is the trauma.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,150
    Why did @Peston think that having the script line ‘Jeremy Hunt’s cuts’ would end well?

    https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1582851796758048770
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Well that's just plain dumb - how can you punish MPs who saw conflicting reports if it was a confidence vote?

    Even if it's a ploy as MikeL suggests re a vote of no confidence it would be too damaging.
    Is she going to remove the whip from herself for not voting, then ?
    Just nuts.
    She did vote according to the official record
    She seems to have got away with claiming she was there but the machine didn’t register the card.

    Which does raise the question of how reliable it is; important matters could be decided on narrow votes, yet we can’t trust that the count is accurate?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,882
    Heathener said:

    I don't think the markets are going to look good this morning and sterling has had another bad 24 hours.

    We need a General Election but there's no real mechanism by which to do so. Unless 40 tory MPs decide to self-immolate.

    Obviously it wouldn't happen, but on the polls Labour could easily afford to give 40 Tory MPs a free run in return for euthanising this government.

    But being absolutely cynical, wouldn't it be more beneficial to Labour to leave the Tories twisting in the wind for as long as possible? Unless the consequence is to wreck the economy beyond recall, which admittedly doesn't look impossible.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,474
    Last night was excellent sport. I never dared to dream that the Jan 6 debacle would be so soon surpassed for entertainment value.

    Steve "Hunt" Baker has said that Jizzy Lizzy has said she'll give Swella her job back in January. Poor Shapsie!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,150
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Binding opposition motions are always effectively confidence votes as Starmer would gain control of Parliaments business should it succeed.
    That's the fact of the matter and MPs from whatever side should know enough Erskine May to realise.
    Whoever from No 10 sent the late memo out that it wasn't should probably be sacked.
    The minister doing the summing up should also have emphasised this and not needed direction from No 10. Which was wrongly given.
    No-one comes out with any particular credit from the whole unedifying mess but the No 10 official (And perhaps their boss ;) ) need to go.
    The boss didn’t vote.
    She is way beyond a joke.
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Binding opposition motions are always effectively confidence votes as Starmer would gain control of Parliaments business should it succeed.
    That's the fact of the matter and MPs from whatever side should know enough Erskine May to realise.
    Whoever from No 10 sent the late memo out that it wasn't should probably be sacked.
    The minister doing the summing up should also have emphasised this and not needed direction from No 10. Which was wrongly given.
    No-one comes out with any particular credit from the whole unedifying mess but the No 10 official (And perhaps their boss ;) ) need to go.
    The boss didn’t vote.
    She is way beyond a joke.
    Reports suggest she was running after the Chief Whip trying to talk her into un-resigning. Some (Mrs May) were paired (I suspect Johnson was too, being out of the country) so the rebellion may be less impressive than the headline figure.

    And today we may have Bravernan’s resignation statement which may reveal the true policy differences behind the resignation.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,210
    Chris said:

    Heathener said:

    I don't think the markets are going to look good this morning and sterling has had another bad 24 hours.

    We need a General Election but there's no real mechanism by which to do so. Unless 40 tory MPs decide to self-immolate.

    Obviously it wouldn't happen, but on the polls Labour could easily afford to give 40 Tory MPs a free run in return for euthanising this government.

    But being absolutely cynical, wouldn't it be more beneficial to Labour to leave the Tories twisting in the wind for as long as possible?
    Of course. Labour would far rather be facing Truss and her revolving cabinet of moron than Sunak and some halfway competent ministers.

  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,882
    edited October 20
    Dura_Ace said:

    Last night was excellent sport. I never dared to dream that the Jan 6 debacle would be so soon surpassed for entertainment value.

    It was and I agree but both ITV News and BBC News pointed out that, however much of a spectacle it may appear, the consequences are being paid by real people, with real lives, many of whom are right now in real hardship.

    This all happened on a day when the headline inflation rate hit 10%.

    So, whilst it may appear like an excellent sport, to most of us in the country it really isn't just entertainment or a sport.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,757
    Votes breakdown
    2 DUP voted (With govt)
    All SF obviously abstained

    Maj of 96.
    It's almost impossible to work out how many pairs there were but if we take the DUP as being unwrapped and everyone else against then the maj should have been
    Working maj considering SF 71
    2 DUP with govt effectively raises that to 75.
    Then 6 DUP abstentions from the notional opposition gets that to 81.
    But the majority was 96.
    Which suggests some Tory MPs actually broke their pairs, so the true number of peoper rebel abstentions is actually impossible to count
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,150
    edited October 20
    The PM was wrong to accept the Home Secretary’s resignation. She had the legal expertise and the determination to control our borders to enforce a fair immigration policy.

    https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1582958185375469570

    Which is why she was resigned…
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,540
    Worth bearing in mind that the ITV news clip that you had on the thread header last night has been viewed 2.2 million times already - might be as significant as the newspaper front pages. I wonder what mention it will get on the 30-60 second news headlines on commercial radio?
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322

    kle4 said:

    Yup

    No one but Brexit Britain has ever had a political crisis before?
    Don’t think he’s saying that. He’s merely pointing out this is a prime example of self-inflicted damage.

    It must hurt Leavers, seeing their foolish project finally hitting the buffers of reality. It’s driven the Tories insane, such is the trauma.
    Of course it does not hurt the Leavers - this is all the fault of Remainers / Remoaners.... :D
  • I've realised who Liz Truss reminds me of.

    Katherine Harris, the former Secretary of State of Florida.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,604
    ‘We have nearly a year since the Owen Paterson vote’ Bryant

    Can it only have been a year?
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322

    Chris said:

    Heathener said:

    I don't think the markets are going to look good this morning and sterling has had another bad 24 hours.

    We need a General Election but there's no real mechanism by which to do so. Unless 40 tory MPs decide to self-immolate.

    Obviously it wouldn't happen, but on the polls Labour could easily afford to give 40 Tory MPs a free run in return for euthanising this government.

    But being absolutely cynical, wouldn't it be more beneficial to Labour to leave the Tories twisting in the wind for as long as possible?
    Of course. Labour would far rather be facing Truss and her revolving cabinet of moron than Sunak and some halfway competent ministers.

    Perhaps there are MPs who actually do care about the country and whether or not its economy collapses under Trussonomics?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,618
    Icarus said:

    Suppose LizT resigns today.

    Normally she'd stay on in a caretaker capacity until a new PM was elected.

    I can't see that happening unless everyone agrees to play nice for however long it takes -- unlikely.

    Truss would have to see the King to resign (still feels odd saying "King" there... not least because I want to clarify I don't mean Elvis!). Who would Charles send for? Would he rely on Truss's advice? Would Coffey be in with a shout of being caretaker PM simply because she's Deputy right now?

    Even if there's behind-the-scenes agreement in the Tory party that Sunak (or whoever) steps in as caretaker, what does Charles do if Truss recommends someone else?

    There's a strong case here for a written Constitution...!!

    Careful what you wish for - If we had a written constitution the Deputy PM would take over -Thérèse Coffey anyone?
    I am green on Coffey as next PM. No one in their right mind would choose her, but being Deputy PM in such chaos could make her PM accidentally.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,882

    Chris said:

    Heathener said:

    I don't think the markets are going to look good this morning and sterling has had another bad 24 hours.

    We need a General Election but there's no real mechanism by which to do so. Unless 40 tory MPs decide to self-immolate.

    Obviously it wouldn't happen, but on the polls Labour could easily afford to give 40 Tory MPs a free run in return for euthanising this government.

    But being absolutely cynical, wouldn't it be more beneficial to Labour to leave the Tories twisting in the wind for as long as possible?
    Of course. Labour would far rather be facing Truss and her revolving cabinet of moron than Sunak and some halfway competent ministers.

    But I think the question is - would they rather being in government over the next couple of years, or stay in opposition? If Sunak took over, he would still have nightmarish problems to grapple with, and would also be constantly looking over his shoulder at the swivel-eyed loons.


  • The Daily Telegraph has apologised after breaching the Editors' Code when it published claims made by Restore Trust about non-existent mass sackings at the National Trust. 1/3

    The interviewee claimed the NT ‘sacked 1,700 curators at the start of covid’, going on to claim ‘lots’ had spoken to Restore Trust about age and commercialism. The number of curator redundancies in 2020 was in fact 8; 4 of these voluntary. 2/3

    The subheading for the article described a campaign ‘against the politicisation’ of the National Trust, despite the interviewee discussing their own links to a main political party in it. I complained about this but the Telegraph will not change the subheading.


    https://twitter.com/CeliaRichards0n/status/1582974202235486208/photo/1
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,044
    The 40 include Truss, Kwarteng, Morton (chief whip), and Duddridge who's supposed to be a big Truss supporter. But someone said there was an error with the list.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042

    Why did @Peston think that having the script line ‘Jeremy Hunt’s cuts’ would end well?

    https://twitter.com/jonsopel/status/1582851796758048770

    Maybe he is just Ron Burgundy - and reads whatever is written on the autocue?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,044
    Jonathan said:

    Braverman is on manoeuvres, right?

    I wonder how the 1922 committee intend to stop her from running for the leadership...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807

    It’s still totally unclear how the government unleashed today’s fiasco.

    Why the hell did they make this a 3-line whip?
    They could, for example, have instructed Tories to abstain.

    Why did Liz fire Suella today of all days? What was the security breach, and how serious is it really?

    What on earth was going on between Downing Street and the Whip’s Office? Where, for example, is the Chief of Staff? You know, the one who moonlights as a lobbyist for foreign dictators?

    It was an email sent privately by B to a member of the ERG telling them about the new pro-growth immigration policy that Truss wanted her to announce.

    I’d say that was a sacking offence? She got her resignation in first.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,150
    Andy_JS said:

    The 40 include Truss, Kwarteng, Morton (chief whip), and Duddridge who's supposed to be a big Truss supporter. But someone said there was an error with the list.

    Truss did vote:

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-10-19/division/6C87FA56-6A8F-459D-8037-61F29A52FE63/BanOnFrackingForShaleGasBill?outputType=Names
  • Yesterday was the end. A government in utter chaos incapable of dispatching an opposition day motion with it's large majority without collapsing into utter chaos.

    The "it's a confidence motion" to not vote against their own manifesto was bad.
    Realising they were in trouble and withdrawing the confidence part at the last was really bad.
    Cabinet ministers scuffling and physically dragging wayward MPs through the lobby is outrageous.
    The Chief Whip and Deputy both resigning and then later unresigning is bonkers. The PM not voting in her own confidence motion as she is publicly snubbed by her own Chief Whip is insane.
    Sending text messages at 01:30 to senior hacks reinstating the confidence element as the price for keeping the Chief and Deputy Whip in post is madness.
    And I haven't mentioned the "resignation" of the Home Secretary and her replacement by a man who still has the "let's depose the PM" spreadsheet.

    Yesterday was the end. The government has ceased to function and it is clear to all that Truss has to go. Impossible but now necessary. The problem is that the Shapps appointment instead of Braverman ignited the smouldering civil war so that anointing anyone else is likely now impossible.

    Which makes for the most impossible thing - total collapse to a General Election - now a very real scenario. What a shit show.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,150
    Jonathan said:

    Braverman is on manoeuvres, right?

    Her resignation statement in the HoC will tell us a lot - but if it’s anything like her letter I suspect it will sink her chances.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,365
    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Well that's just plain dumb - how can you punish MPs who saw conflicting reports if it was a confidence vote?

    Even if it's a ploy as MikeL suggests re a vote of no confidence it would be too damaging.
    Is she going to remove the whip from herself for not voting, then ?
    Just nuts.
    She did vote according to the official record
    She seems to have got away with claiming she was there but the machine didn’t register the card.

    Which does raise the question of how reliable it is; important matters could be decided on narrow votes, yet we can’t trust that the count is accurate?
    Did some other MP not make the same claim?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,044

    Yesterday was the end. A government in utter chaos incapable of dispatching an opposition day motion with it's large majority without collapsing into utter chaos.

    The "it's a confidence motion" to not vote against their own manifesto was bad.
    Realising they were in trouble and withdrawing the confidence part at the last was really bad.
    Cabinet ministers scuffling and physically dragging wayward MPs through the lobby is outrageous.
    The Chief Whip and Deputy both resigning and then later unresigning is bonkers. The PM not voting in her own confidence motion as she is publicly snubbed by her own Chief Whip is insane.
    Sending text messages at 01:30 to senior hacks reinstating the confidence element as the price for keeping the Chief and Deputy Whip in post is madness.
    And I haven't mentioned the "resignation" of the Home Secretary and her replacement by a man who still has the "let's depose the PM" spreadsheet.

    Yesterday was the end. The government has ceased to function and it is clear to all that Truss has to go. Impossible but now necessary. The problem is that the Shapps appointment instead of Braverman ignited the smouldering civil war so that anointing anyone else is likely now impossible.

    Which makes for the most impossible thing - total collapse to a General Election - now a very real scenario. What a shit show.

    Has a government with such a large majority ever imploded before? Usually it happens to parties with tiny majorities or no majority.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    The B email mentioned above had attached a draft of the ministerial statement she had been told to make today
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    Andy_JS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Braverman is on manoeuvres, right?

    I wonder how the 1922 committee intend to stop her from running for the leadership...
    She could get there if it somehow goes to the membership. 28 is a good price.
    Then she would find herself in an infinitely worse position than Truss as PM.
    The key problem is that - after getting Brexit done - the tories don't have a clear idea what they are in power to do. Is it to provide strong and stable leadership? Or to destroy the woke?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855
    edited October 20
    Andy_JS said:

    Yesterday was the end. A government in utter chaos incapable of dispatching an opposition day motion with it's large majority without collapsing into utter chaos.

    The "it's a confidence motion" to not vote against their own manifesto was bad.
    Realising they were in trouble and withdrawing the confidence part at the last was really bad.
    Cabinet ministers scuffling and physically dragging wayward MPs through the lobby is outrageous.
    The Chief Whip and Deputy both resigning and then later unresigning is bonkers. The PM not voting in her own confidence motion as she is publicly snubbed by her own Chief Whip is insane.
    Sending text messages at 01:30 to senior hacks reinstating the confidence element as the price for keeping the Chief and Deputy Whip in post is madness.
    And I haven't mentioned the "resignation" of the Home Secretary and her replacement by a man who still has the "let's depose the PM" spreadsheet.

    Yesterday was the end. The government has ceased to function and it is clear to all that Truss has to go. Impossible but now necessary. The problem is that the Shapps appointment instead of Braverman ignited the smouldering civil war so that anointing anyone else is likely now impossible.

    Which makes for the most impossible thing - total collapse to a General Election - now a very real scenario. What a shit show.

    Has a government with such a large majority ever imploded before? Usually it happens to parties with tiny majorities or no majority.
    Balfour, 1903. Majority of 134, three cabinet resignations within about a month and the party split three ways.

    Edit - the only other examples I can think of with large majorities are the Liberals in 1866 who imploded over the Second Reform Act, the Conservatives in 1846 who split over the Corn Laws, and the Whigs in 1834 over Melbourne replacing Grey as PM.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807

    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Well that's just plain dumb - how can you punish MPs who saw conflicting reports if it was a confidence vote?

    Even if it's a ploy as MikeL suggests re a vote of no confidence it would be too damaging.
    Is she going to remove the whip from herself for not voting, then ?
    Just nuts.
    She did vote according to the official record
    She seems to have got away with claiming she was there but the machine didn’t register the card.

    Which does raise the question of how reliable it is; important matters could be decided on narrow votes, yet we can’t trust that the count is accurate?
    Did some other MP not make the same claim?
    In Truss’s case, probably some junior MP has done the leader a favour by ‘confirming’ she was seen in the lobby?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,150
    Thread:

    There is an immense moral and ethical cowardice in academia and in think tanks. The level of pontification on nuclear war without asking the question what happens next is astounding. What happens when Ukraine is forced into a peace deal that cedes its territories? Some thoughts..

    https://twitter.com/AfterWestphalia/status/1582730511910580226
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,540

    Chris said:

    Heathener said:

    I don't think the markets are going to look good this morning and sterling has had another bad 24 hours.

    We need a General Election but there's no real mechanism by which to do so. Unless 40 tory MPs decide to self-immolate.

    Obviously it wouldn't happen, but on the polls Labour could easily afford to give 40 Tory MPs a free run in return for euthanising this government.

    But being absolutely cynical, wouldn't it be more beneficial to Labour to leave the Tories twisting in the wind for as long as possible?
    Of course. Labour would far rather be facing Truss and her revolving cabinet of moron than Sunak and some halfway competent ministers.
    It has to be taken as read that Truss will not lead the Tories into the next election. It's therefore in Labour's interest for the next PM to take over as soon as possible, so that they can take the blame for the shambles and economic crisis that will inevitably follow, since the splits within the Tory party are not going to be papered over.

    The MPs who supported Truss, Braverman and Badenoch in the leadership election are not all going to sit idly by and watch Sunak (or whoever) implement policies that they oppose.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,150
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Well that's just plain dumb - how can you punish MPs who saw conflicting reports if it was a confidence vote?

    Even if it's a ploy as MikeL suggests re a vote of no confidence it would be too damaging.
    Is she going to remove the whip from herself for not voting, then ?
    Just nuts.
    She did vote according to the official record
    She seems to have got away with claiming she was there but the machine didn’t register the card.

    Which does raise the question of how reliable it is; important matters could be decided on narrow votes, yet we can’t trust that the count is accurate?
    Did some other MP not make the same claim?
    In Truss’s case, probably some junior MP has done the leader a favour by ‘confirming’ she was seen in the lobby?
    It’s in the Hansard record.
  • Andy_JS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Braverman is on manoeuvres, right?

    I wonder how the 1922 committee intend to stop her from running for the leadership...
    The nominations threshold to stand for leader will be 120.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,365
    Andy_JS said:

    Yesterday was the end. A government in utter chaos incapable of dispatching an opposition day motion with it's large majority without collapsing into utter chaos.

    The "it's a confidence motion" to not vote against their own manifesto was bad.
    Realising they were in trouble and withdrawing the confidence part at the last was really bad.
    Cabinet ministers scuffling and physically dragging wayward MPs through the lobby is outrageous.
    The Chief Whip and Deputy both resigning and then later unresigning is bonkers. The PM not voting in her own confidence motion as she is publicly snubbed by her own Chief Whip is insane.
    Sending text messages at 01:30 to senior hacks reinstating the confidence element as the price for keeping the Chief and Deputy Whip in post is madness.
    And I haven't mentioned the "resignation" of the Home Secretary and her replacement by a man who still has the "let's depose the PM" spreadsheet.

    Yesterday was the end. The government has ceased to function and it is clear to all that Truss has to go. Impossible but now necessary. The problem is that the Shapps appointment instead of Braverman ignited the smouldering civil war so that anointing anyone else is likely now impossible.

    Which makes for the most impossible thing - total collapse to a General Election - now a very real scenario. What a shit show.

    Has a government with such a large majority ever imploded before? Usually it happens to parties with tiny majorities or no majority.
    May 1940, perhaps, and they did not have to worry about gas imports and had just won a confidence vote. Night of the Long Knives. when Harold Macmillan sacked a third of the Cabinet, despite a government majority of 100.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    At 1:33am, another twist. A message from Downing St source to say it WAS a confidence vote - with consequences for those MPs who didn’t back the government lifting ban on fracking. https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1582936217632444418/photo/1

    Well that's just plain dumb - how can you punish MPs who saw conflicting reports if it was a confidence vote?

    Even if it's a ploy as MikeL suggests re a vote of no confidence it would be too damaging.
    Is she going to remove the whip from herself for not voting, then ?
    Just nuts.
    She did vote according to the official record
    She seems to have got away with claiming she was there but the machine didn’t register the card.

    Which does raise the question of how reliable it is; important matters could be decided on narrow votes, yet we can’t trust that the count is accurate?
    Did some other MP not make the same claim?
    In Truss’s case, probably some junior MP has done the leader a favour by ‘confirming’ she was seen in the lobby?
    It’s in the Hansard record.
    Yes, but how did it get there? There’s no argument that Truss’s vote wasn’t on the machine-generated list and was absent from the first version published by parliament.
  • ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Yesterday was the end. A government in utter chaos incapable of dispatching an opposition day motion with it's large majority without collapsing into utter chaos.

    The "it's a confidence motion" to not vote against their own manifesto was bad.
    Realising they were in trouble and withdrawing the confidence part at the last was really bad.
    Cabinet ministers scuffling and physically dragging wayward MPs through the lobby is outrageous.
    The Chief Whip and Deputy both resigning and then later unresigning is bonkers. The PM not voting in her own confidence motion as she is publicly snubbed by her own Chief Whip is insane.
    Sending text messages at 01:30 to senior hacks reinstating the confidence element as the price for keeping the Chief and Deputy Whip in post is madness.
    And I haven't mentioned the "resignation" of the Home Secretary and her replacement by a man who still has the "let's depose the PM" spreadsheet.

    Yesterday was the end. The government has ceased to function and it is clear to all that Truss has to go. Impossible but now necessary. The problem is that the Shapps appointment instead of Braverman ignited the smouldering civil war so that anointing anyone else is likely now impossible.

    Which makes for the most impossible thing - total collapse to a General Election - now a very real scenario. What a shit show.

    Has a government with such a large majority ever imploded before? Usually it happens to parties with tiny majorities or no majority.
    Balfour, 1903. Majority of 134, three cabinet resignations within about a month and the party split three ways.

    You could add the Chamberlain ministry to that list?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807

    Andy_JS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Braverman is on manoeuvres, right?

    I wonder how the 1922 committee intend to stop her from running for the leadership...
    The nominations threshold to stand for leader will be 120.
    Currently that’s the informal threshold set by Brady that will trigger the committee reviewing the rules. You’re right that this may also become the nomination threshold, I guess.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,540
    Pulpstar said:

    Votes breakdown
    2 DUP voted (With govt)
    All SF obviously abstained

    Maj of 96.
    It's almost impossible to work out how many pairs there were but if we take the DUP as being unwrapped and everyone else against then the maj should have been
    Working maj considering SF 71
    2 DUP with govt effectively raises that to 75.
    Then 6 DUP abstentions from the notional opposition gets that to 81.
    But the majority was 96.
    Which suggests some Tory MPs actually broke their pairs, so the true number of peoper rebel abstentions is actually impossible to count

    Did the SNP abstain? Presumably on the basis that fracking is a devolved matter.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204

    Yesterday was the end. A government in utter chaos incapable of dispatching an opposition day motion with it's large majority without collapsing into utter chaos.

    The "it's a confidence motion" to not vote against their own manifesto was bad.
    Realising they were in trouble and withdrawing the confidence part at the last was really bad.
    Cabinet ministers scuffling and physically dragging wayward MPs through the lobby is outrageous.
    The Chief Whip and Deputy both resigning and then later unresigning is bonkers. The PM not voting in her own confidence motion as she is publicly snubbed by her own Chief Whip is insane.
    Sending text messages at 01:30 to senior hacks reinstating the confidence element as the price for keeping the Chief and Deputy Whip in post is madness.
    And I haven't mentioned the "resignation" of the Home Secretary and her replacement by a man who still has the "let's depose the PM" spreadsheet.

    Yesterday was the end. The government has ceased to function and it is clear to all that Truss has to go. Impossible but now necessary. The problem is that the Shapps appointment instead of Braverman ignited the smouldering civil war so that anointing anyone else is likely now impossible.

    Which makes for the most impossible thing - total collapse to a General Election - now a very real scenario. What a shit show.

    I still haven't got my head around the 'fracking vote'.
    It seems like the issue was that the government needed to win it to keep control of the legislative process, so it is understandable therefore why it was turned in to a confidence issue.
    But a spectacularly brilliant political manoeuvre by Labour in any case.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,605



    The Daily Telegraph has apologised after breaching the Editors' Code when it published claims made by Restore Trust about non-existent mass sackings at the National Trust. 1/3

    The interviewee claimed the NT ‘sacked 1,700 curators at the start of covid’, going on to claim ‘lots’ had spoken to Restore Trust about age and commercialism. The number of curator redundancies in 2020 was in fact 8; 4 of these voluntary. 2/3

    The subheading for the article described a campaign ‘against the politicisation’ of the National Trust, despite the interviewee discussing their own links to a main political party in it. I complained about this but the Telegraph will not change the subheading.


    https://twitter.com/CeliaRichards0n/status/1582974202235486208/photo/1

    Nothing to see here, just the “conservative” Telegraph publishing a bullshit hitjob against the National Trust.

    Why do Tories hate Britain?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807

    Chris said:

    Heathener said:

    I don't think the markets are going to look good this morning and sterling has had another bad 24 hours.

    We need a General Election but there's no real mechanism by which to do so. Unless 40 tory MPs decide to self-immolate.

    Obviously it wouldn't happen, but on the polls Labour could easily afford to give 40 Tory MPs a free run in return for euthanising this government.

    But being absolutely cynical, wouldn't it be more beneficial to Labour to leave the Tories twisting in the wind for as long as possible?
    Of course. Labour would far rather be facing Truss and her revolving cabinet of moron than Sunak and some halfway competent ministers.
    It has to be taken as read that Truss will not lead the Tories into the next election. It's therefore in Labour's interest for the next PM to take over as soon as possible, so that they can take the blame for the shambles and economic crisis that will inevitably follow, since the splits within the Tory party are not going to be papered over.

    The MPs who supported Truss, Braverman and Badenoch in the leadership election are not all going to sit idly by and watch Sunak (or whoever) implement policies that they oppose.
    Lay Starmer as next PM at 14
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,540

    Pulpstar said:

    Votes breakdown
    2 DUP voted (With govt)
    All SF obviously abstained

    Maj of 96.
    It's almost impossible to work out how many pairs there were but if we take the DUP as being unwrapped and everyone else against then the maj should have been
    Working maj considering SF 71
    2 DUP with govt effectively raises that to 75.
    Then 6 DUP abstentions from the notional opposition gets that to 81.
    But the majority was 96.
    Which suggests some Tory MPs actually broke their pairs, so the true number of peoper rebel abstentions is actually impossible to count

    Did the SNP abstain? Presumably on the basis that fracking is a devolved matter.
    No, 34 SNP and Alba MPs voted for the motion. Not sure what happened then.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,150
    All UK political parties contain uncomfortable coalitions that after a period of power can so often become unmanageable, and are rendered toxic when there are betrayal myths. That's seems to be the Conservative Party right now, even its MPs think in need of rebuild in opposition.

    https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1582981678280380416
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,042
    darkage said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Jonathan said:

    Braverman is on manoeuvres, right?

    I wonder how the 1922 committee intend to stop her from running for the leadership...
    She could get there if it somehow goes to the membership. 28 is a good price.
    Then she would find herself in an infinitely worse position than Truss as PM.
    The key problem is that - after getting Brexit done - the tories don't have a clear idea what they are in power to do. Is it to provide strong and stable leadership? Or to destroy the woke?
    Braverman's ambition and self-belief is W-A-Y more unwarranted than even that of Liz Truss.

    The Tories have no-one who can take her to one side and say "Suella...no. Just...no! Look at Liz Truss - and learn." The lack of respected grandees who are listened to is a major (pun intended) problem for management of the party.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    darkage said:

    Yesterday was the end. A government in utter chaos incapable of dispatching an opposition day motion with it's large majority without collapsing into utter chaos.

    The "it's a confidence motion" to not vote against their own manifesto was bad.
    Realising they were in trouble and withdrawing the confidence part at the last was really bad.
    Cabinet ministers scuffling and physically dragging wayward MPs through the lobby is outrageous.
    The Chief Whip and Deputy both resigning and then later unresigning is bonkers. The PM not voting in her own confidence motion as she is publicly snubbed by her own Chief Whip is insane.
    Sending text messages at 01:30 to senior hacks reinstating the confidence element as the price for keeping the Chief and Deputy Whip in post is madness.
    And I haven't mentioned the "resignation" of the Home Secretary and her replacement by a man who still has the "let's depose the PM" spreadsheet.

    Yesterday was the end. The government has ceased to function and it is clear to all that Truss has to go. Impossible but now necessary. The problem is that the Shapps appointment instead of Braverman ignited the smouldering civil war so that anointing anyone else is likely now impossible.

    Which makes for the most impossible thing - total collapse to a General Election - now a very real scenario. What a shit show.

    I still haven't got my head around the 'fracking vote'.
    It seems like the issue was that the government needed to win it to keep control of the legislative process, so it is understandable therefore why it was turned in to a confidence issue.
    But a spectacularly brilliant political manoeuvre by Labour in any case.
    Especially since they lost the vote by 100 and it still caused political chaos.

    Although Labour may not have wanted Truss brought down so immediately, so perhaps they have overshot?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,855

    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Yesterday was the end. A government in utter chaos incapable of dispatching an opposition day motion with it's large majority without collapsing into utter chaos.

    The "it's a confidence motion" to not vote against their own manifesto was bad.
    Realising they were in trouble and withdrawing the confidence part at the last was really bad.
    Cabinet ministers scuffling and physically dragging wayward MPs through the lobby is outrageous.
    The Chief Whip and Deputy both resigning and then later unresigning is bonkers. The PM not voting in her own confidence motion as she is publicly snubbed by her own Chief Whip is insane.
    Sending text messages at 01:30 to senior hacks reinstating the confidence element as the price for keeping the Chief and Deputy Whip in post is madness.
    And I haven't mentioned the "resignation" of the Home Secretary and her replacement by a man who still has the "let's depose the PM" spreadsheet.

    Yesterday was the end. The government has ceased to function and it is clear to all that Truss has to go. Impossible but now necessary. The problem is that the Shapps appointment instead of Braverman ignited the smouldering civil war so that anointing anyone else is likely now impossible.

    Which makes for the most impossible thing - total collapse to a General Election - now a very real scenario. What a shit show.

    Has a government with such a large majority ever imploded before? Usually it happens to parties with tiny majorities or no majority.
    Balfour, 1903. Majority of 134, three cabinet resignations within about a month and the party split three ways.
    You could add the Chamberlain ministry to that list?
    Yes, I suppose that would be another parallel. Especially as the party lost the next election.

    He did however have a much better excuse than any of the others. This is an entirely unforced error, a bit like Tariff Reform or the Second Reform Act.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,044
    ydoethur said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Yesterday was the end. A government in utter chaos incapable of dispatching an opposition day motion with it's large majority without collapsing into utter chaos.

    The "it's a confidence motion" to not vote against their own manifesto was bad.
    Realising they were in trouble and withdrawing the confidence part at the last was really bad.
    Cabinet ministers scuffling and physically dragging wayward MPs through the lobby is outrageous.
    The Chief Whip and Deputy both resigning and then later unresigning is bonkers. The PM not voting in her own confidence motion as she is publicly snubbed by her own Chief Whip is insane.
    Sending text messages at 01:30 to senior hacks reinstating the confidence element as the price for keeping the Chief and Deputy Whip in post is madness.
    And I haven't mentioned the "resignation" of the Home Secretary and her replacement by a man who still has the "let's depose the PM" spreadsheet.

    Yesterday was the end. The government has ceased to function and it is clear to all that Truss has to go. Impossible but now necessary. The problem is that the Shapps appointment instead of Braverman ignited the smouldering civil war so that anointing anyone else is likely now impossible.

    Which makes for the most impossible thing - total collapse to a General Election - now a very real scenario. What a shit show.

    Has a government with such a large majority ever imploded before? Usually it happens to parties with tiny majorities or no majority.
    Balfour, 1903. Majority of 134, three cabinet resignations within about a month and the party split three ways.

    Edit - the only other examples I can think of with large majorities are the Liberals in 1866 who imploded over the Second Reform Act, the Conservatives in 1846 who split over the Corn Laws, and the Whigs in 1834 over Melbourne replacing Grey as PM.
    Interesting. Arthur "Bob's your uncle" Balfour.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,322
    IanB2 said:

    The B email mentioned above had attached a draft of the ministerial statement she had been told to make today

    I still wonder if she sent it "accidently on purpose"? Was it sent before or after her row with Truss? Was it the cause of the row or the result of it?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,204
    edited October 20
    This political soap opera/tragedy is very distracting.
    I fear it could go on like yesterday for days, weeks and months to come.
    I think it is a good time to log out of this website for a while and focus on work.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807
    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    Suppose LizT resigns today.

    Normally she'd stay on in a caretaker capacity until a new PM was elected.

    I can't see that happening unless everyone agrees to play nice for however long it takes -- unlikely.

    Truss would have to see the King to resign (still feels odd saying "King" there... not least because I want to clarify I don't mean Elvis!). Who would Charles send for? Would he rely on Truss's advice? Would Coffey be in with a shout of being caretaker PM simply because she's Deputy right now?

    Even if there's behind-the-scenes agreement in the Tory party that Sunak (or whoever) steps in as caretaker, what does Charles do if Truss recommends someone else?

    There's a strong case here for a written Constitution...!!

    Careful what you wish for - If we had a written constitution the Deputy PM would take over -Thérèse Coffey anyone?
    I am green on Coffey as next PM. No one in their right mind would choose her, but being Deputy PM in such chaos could make her PM accidentally.
    Deputy PM is not actually a formal role, though, is it? But an invention originally crafted for Prescott’s ego.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,807

    IanB2 said:

    The B email mentioned above had attached a draft of the ministerial statement she had been told to make today

    I still wonder if she sent it "accidently on purpose"? Was it sent before or after her row with Truss? Was it the cause of the row or the result of it?
    Nothing I have heard suggests it was accidental. Before the row, and the cause.
This discussion has been closed.