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.
As has already been pointed out, there is precedent. Truss can't govern. That's a statement of fact and she will be gone very quickly.
The problem is "and be replaced with whom". There is no unity candidate. There is no unity - a lot of MPs and their hard right GBeebies commentator friends screeching on about remainer plots. The replacement - the sacking - of the supposedly wonderful Braverman and the installation of remainer snake Michael Green is supposedly the final straw for them.
The country will not permit another protracted period of Tory blood letting in the form of another leadership contest. The new leader won't command support of a chunk of the parliamentary party whomever they are, and would have a party poll rating in the teens.
Which is why collapse into a GE now looks like a strong possibility. Your party are simply incapable of governing. Of disciplining themselves. Of putting the country above their internecine factional warfare.
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.
Nothing to see here, just the “conservative” Telegraph publishing a bullshit hitjob against the National Trust.
Why do Tories hate Britain?
I don't know if I classify myself as a 'Tory', but for me it's not a case of 'hating' Britain. It's a distrust of large organisations - especially charities - that become immune to criticism because they are so large and influential.
The Telegraph were wrong in this case - but the NT can do some fairly poor things IMO. Criticising the NT is not 'hating' Britain. In the same way criticising the NHS is not 'hating' the NHS or Britain.
In fact, fair criticism is vital. The problem with the Telegraph's story is that it was not fair.
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.
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.
More declared Mordaunt supporters switched to Truss than to Sunak by some margin.
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.
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.
If there are 120 Tory MPs prepared to inflict another membership vote on the Party, then it is best the MPs are wiped away and replaced in a decade or more.
That said, despite all that has passed so far, I still don't see a General Election resulting from the current chaos. Peer over the edge, pause, step back to "regroup" under a safer pair of hands.
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
Laying Starmer and Boris as next PM are the obvious plays.
They only exist at current odds due to wishful thinking.
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.
Actually Heseltine was also deputy PM, as was Eden, as was Attlee.
The thing is not the office doesn’t exist - after all, a good argument could be made that there is no office of ‘Prime Minister’ either - but that it has no special constitutional significance unlike, say, the US Vice Presidency.
I am now starting to wonder if what some have speculated is right here and the Tory Party is so irredeemably fractured that it actually can’t go on governing.
This has been partially caused by the pandering to and over-promotion of a number of MPs particularly from the ERG wing which has given them too much influence over the party (or at least given them that impression). The rot started with Johnson putting characters like Braverman, Rees-Mogg and Dorries into the cabinet, but made worse by Truss by elevating them (ok, sans Dorries) into bigger roles and building a cabinet of her core supporters (who, like the woman herself, aren’t very good).
In many ways I am glad that it is all coming home to roost for them. But I do have a concern that a fractured party will hide the fact that there is a strong centre-right tradition in the country that will find itself politically homeless. This time around the Labour Party might be the only place for it to go, but it is not great for our democracy if one party is winning 450+ seats in Parliament like the polls are suggesting.
I think we are probably headed for a late spring/early summer GE. Truss is going to have to go, and somehow the replacement has to steady the ship. But they’ll have to confirm to the public they’ll go to the country next year to combat the legitimacy crisis that’s now engulfing the whole debate (wrongly, in my view, by the way, but thems the breaks). I think that timing is just about the maximum they can hold it for before the party starts collapsing on itself again. A temporary truce and a GE next year. That’s the only way for them to come out of this with any chance of survival.
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.
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.
As has already been pointed out, there is precedent. Truss can't govern. That's a statement of fact and she will be gone very quickly.
The problem is "and be replaced with whom". There is no unity candidate. There is no unity - a lot of MPs and their hard right GBeebies commentator friends screeching on about remainer plots. The replacement - the sacking - of the supposedly wonderful Braverman and the installation of remainer snake Michael Green is supposedly the final straw for them.
The country will not permit another protracted period of Tory blood letting in the form of another leadership contest. The new leader won't command support of a chunk of the parliamentary party whomever they are, and would have a party poll rating in the teens.
Which is why collapse into a GE now looks like a strong possibility. Your party are simply incapable of governing. Of disciplining themselves. Of putting the country above their internecine factional warfare.
Not my party, I'm neutral. I've voted LD more often than not. Campaigned for them at the Eastleigh by-election.
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.
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.
More declared Mordaunt supporters switched to Truss than to Sunak by some margin.
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.
Labour has to be seen to be putting the national interest first.
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. The real question about fracking is whether our geology is actually suitable for economic extraction. If it is we should do it, just as we should be squeezing what we can from the North Sea, whatever those idiots on the QEII bridge think. The alternative is that we import the gas or oil from other places we would really rather not do business with (and our trade deficit gets even worse).
Have not been reading PB this week so don't know if this has been discussed.
Had the thought that Braverman had deliberately made the procedural mistake so that she could self-righteously resign on a point of principle.
Certainly the point has been made that it seems highly convenient, to say the least, for her embryonic leadership campaign for when Truss falls, that she is now out and free to speak.
Have not been reading PB this week so don't know if this has been discussed.
Had the thought that Braverman had deliberately made the procedural mistake so that she could self-righteously resign on a point of principle.
More likely, the email was asking what she should do and whether she should resign, given the attachment she had been told to announce today, and the recipient suggested she could use the email as the pretext. It’s all happened too quickly to have been discovered by some official.
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.
The party has explicitly repudiated its own grandees, thanks to Johnson and Brexit. It simply isn't the same party anymore.
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.
Actually Heseltine was also deputy PM, as was Eden, as was Attlee.
The thing is not the office doesn’t exist - after all, a good argument could be made that there is no office of ‘Prime Minister’ either - but that it has no special constitutional significance unlike, say, the US Vice Presidency.
As ever with our constitution it is all rather grey. I think though in the modern era that King Charles would accept that a deputy PM has more right to be a caretaker PM than anyone else in the Cabinet should such be needed.
But he would need assurances the person was not planning to run for leader at same time.
The record was amended afterwards - we don’t know on what basis it was *established* that Truss had actually voted, in the absence of electronic confirmation? And there were eye witnesses who saw her in deep argument with Morton at the time - Morton is still listed as having missed her own 3-line whip.
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.
Nothing to see here, just the “conservative” Telegraph publishing a bullshit hitjob against the National Trust.
Why do Tories hate Britain?
I don't know if I classify myself as a 'Tory', but for me it's not a case of 'hating' Britain. It's a distrust of large organisations - especially charities - that become immune to criticism because they are so large and influential.
The Telegraph were wrong in this case - but the NT can do some fairly poor things IMO. Criticising the NT is not 'hating' Britain. In the same way criticising the NHS is not 'hating' the NHS or Britain.
In fact, fair criticism is vital. The problem with the Telegraph's story is that it was not fair.
But that’s @Gardenwalker s point. You’re defending thin air. Criticising the NT for valid institutional failings is one thing. Amplifying a made up story because the Telegraph doesn’t like the decisions the NT is making on issues they see as political is quite another.
It is deliberately fraying the fabric of our society, and that’s deeply un-conservative.
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.
If there are 120 Tory MPs prepared to inflict another membership vote on the Party, then it is best the MPs are wiped away and replaced in a decade or more.
That said, despite all that has passed so far, I still don't see a General Election resulting from the current chaos. Peer over the edge, pause, step back to "regroup" under a safer pair of hands.
Indeed, Labour MPs imposed Brown for 3 years as PM without him ever winning a general election. There is no reason Sunak could not become PM by coronation of Tory MPs and lead the party and country until 2024/25. He even now has the support of most Tory Members
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?
The chronology appears to be "afterwards" and I suspect it was used by Braverman as an excuse for resigning - according to Cummings this sort of thing happens all the time and while a technical breach would warrant no more than a slap on the wrist. Instead Braverman used it to contrast her conduct with Truss's. Her resignation statement should be a corker.
In fairness to the Chief Whip trying to whip the current Conservative party must make herding cats look like a walk in the park. So many factions, so little in common, so many loud mouth opinionated twats who want the world to know what they think and utter incompetence in the form of direction from the centre with no core beliefs or principles to guide anyone.
The Conservatives will undoubtedly benefit from a period in opposition to rediscover what they are actually for. The risk is that no one will actually care anymore.
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.
The party has explicitly repudiated its own grandees, thanks to Johnson and Brexit. It simply isn't the same party anymore.
Partly this is because so many of them have become total ideologues. Nothing matters to the ERG other than that you are as hard as hard can be on Brexit. The fact that you have no ability to govern or connect with the public or lead a party is irrelevant in their heads.
It is like GOP. At first it was Tea Party types accusing anyone who could govern as being a RINO. Now it is Trump cultists saying only the most useless idiots can be allowed to win primaries because they are the ones who will follow Trump into another insurrection.
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.
Nothing to see here, just the “conservative” Telegraph publishing a bullshit hitjob against the National Trust.
Why do Tories hate Britain?
I don't know if I classify myself as a 'Tory', but for me it's not a case of 'hating' Britain. It's a distrust of large organisations - especially charities - that become immune to criticism because they are so large and influential.
The Telegraph were wrong in this case - but the NT can do some fairly poor things IMO. Criticising the NT is not 'hating' Britain. In the same way criticising the NHS is not 'hating' the NHS or Britain.
In fact, fair criticism is vital. The problem with the Telegraph's story is that it was not fair.
But that’s @Gardenwalker s point. You’re defending thin air. Criticising the NT for valid institutional failings is one thing. Amplifying a made up story because the Telegraph doesn’t like the decisions the NT is making on issues they see as political is quite another.
It is deliberately fraying the fabric of our society, and that’s deeply un-conservative.
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.
As has already been pointed out, there is precedent. Truss can't govern. That's a statement of fact and she will be gone very quickly.
The problem is "and be replaced with whom". There is no unity candidate. There is no unity - a lot of MPs and their hard right GBeebies commentator friends screeching on about remainer plots. The replacement - the sacking - of the supposedly wonderful Braverman and the installation of remainer snake Michael Green is supposedly the final straw for them.
The country will not permit another protracted period of Tory blood letting in the form of another leadership contest. The new leader won't command support of a chunk of the parliamentary party whomever they are, and would have a party poll rating in the teens.
Which is why collapse into a GE now looks like a strong possibility. Your party are simply incapable of governing. Of disciplining themselves. Of putting the country above their internecine factional warfare.
Not my party, I'm neutral. I've voted LD more often than not. Campaigned for them at the Eastleigh by-election.
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. The real question about fracking is whether our geology is actually suitable for economic extraction. If it is we should do it, just as we should be squeezing what we can from the North Sea, whatever those idiots on the QEII bridge think. The alternative is that we import the gas or oil from other places we would really rather not do business with (and our trade deficit gets even worse).
As an avowed environmentalist I reluctantly agree with this IFF combined with a coherent medium term plan to get out of gas and oil much faster than currently planned.
The lack of coherence about what follows it tops the scales back against it, currently, imo. We are just postponing a problem (decarbonising energy) which, the earlier we grapple with, the more we will benefit from (eg growth from expertise in alternative sources of energy)
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.
Nothing to see here, just the “conservative” Telegraph publishing a bullshit hitjob against the National Trust.
Why do Tories hate Britain?
I don't know if I classify myself as a 'Tory', but for me it's not a case of 'hating' Britain. It's a distrust of large organisations - especially charities - that become immune to criticism because they are so large and influential.
The Telegraph were wrong in this case - but the NT can do some fairly poor things IMO. Criticising the NT is not 'hating' Britain. In the same way criticising the NHS is not 'hating' the NHS or Britain.
In fact, fair criticism is vital. The problem with the Telegraph's story is that it was not fair.
But that’s @Gardenwalker s point. You’re defending thin air. Criticising the NT for valid institutional failings is one thing. Amplifying a made up story because the Telegraph doesn’t like the decisions the NT is making on issues they see as political is quite another.
It is deliberately fraying the fabric of our society, and that’s deeply un-conservative.
In what way was I defending the Telegraph?
Apologies! Re-reading your post you’re absolutely right. I read Gardenwalker’s post as ‘why does the Telegraph hate Britain’ and then read your post as defending the sort of Tory who runs stories like this.
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.
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.
The party has explicitly repudiated its own grandees, thanks to Johnson and Brexit. It simply isn't the same party anymore.
Partly this is because so many of them have become total ideologues. Nothing matters to the ERG other than that you are as hard as hard can be on Brexit. The fact that you have no ability to govern or connect with the public or lead a party is irrelevant in their heads.
It is like GOP. At first it was Tea Party types accusing anyone who could govern as being a RINO. Now it is Trump cultists saying only the most useless idiots can be allowed to win primaries because they are the ones who will follow Trump into another insurrection.
I think there's a danger of believing the ERG is behind everything.
Incompetence and over-ambition can explain much without any political beliefs underlying them.
And the political belief which started things off was that of lower taxes always being both possible and preferable.
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.
The trouble is, Westminster is full of people (within one's own faction, of course) who'll blow smoke up your own arsehole.
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.
If there are 120 Tory MPs prepared to inflict another membership vote on the Party, then it is best the MPs are wiped away and replaced in a decade or more.
That said, despite all that has passed so far, I still don't see a General Election resulting from the current chaos. Peer over the edge, pause, step back to "regroup" under a safer pair of hands.
Indeed, Labour MPs imposed Brown for 3 years as PM without him ever winning a general election. There is no reason Sunak could not become PM by coronation of Tory MPs and lead the party and country until 2024/25. He even now has the support of most Tory Members
There are a number of reasons and you know it. The Labour Party in 2007-2010 had the usual faults and divisions but it was generally happy to coalesce around Brown. The Conservative Party in 2022 couldn’t stick together behind anyone if you poured a vat of superglue over them. The Conservative Party, if you want an analogy with Labour, is at the worst of the Corbyn years. Difference is that your party claims to form a “government”.
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..
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.
Nothing to see here, just the “conservative” Telegraph publishing a bullshit hitjob against the National Trust.
Why do Tories hate Britain?
I don't know if I classify myself as a 'Tory', but for me it's not a case of 'hating' Britain. It's a distrust of large organisations - especially charities - that become immune to criticism because they are so large and influential.
The Telegraph were wrong in this case - but the NT can do some fairly poor things IMO. Criticising the NT is not 'hating' Britain. In the same way criticising the NHS is not 'hating' the NHS or Britain.
In fact, fair criticism is vital. The problem with the Telegraph's story is that it was not fair.
But that’s @Gardenwalker s point. You’re defending thin air. Criticising the NT for valid institutional failings is one thing. Amplifying a made up story because the Telegraph doesn’t like the decisions the NT is making on issues they see as political is quite another.
It is deliberately fraying the fabric of our society, and that’s deeply un-conservative.
In what way was I defending the Telegraph?
Apologies! Re-reading your post you’re absolutely right. I read Gardenwalker’s post as ‘why does the Telegraph hate Britain’ and then read your post as defending the sort of Tory who runs stories like this.
Mea culpa.
He was defending the idea of criticising the NT, while overlooking that *this* criticism was a total smear job.
The author of the original piece has rather interesting affiliations, too.
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.
Nothing to see here, just the “conservative” Telegraph publishing a bullshit hitjob against the National Trust.
Why do Tories hate Britain?
I don't know if I classify myself as a 'Tory', but for me it's not a case of 'hating' Britain. It's a distrust of large organisations - especially charities - that become immune to criticism because they are so large and influential.
The Telegraph were wrong in this case - but the NT can do some fairly poor things IMO. Criticising the NT is not 'hating' Britain. In the same way criticising the NHS is not 'hating' the NHS or Britain.
In fact, fair criticism is vital. The problem with the Telegraph's story is that it was not fair.
Except this wasn't criticism. It was a plain attack based on a parcel of lies.
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!
The only problem is politics can't possibly be as exciting as this ever again. Although we've been saying that every year since the Scottish referendum in 2014.
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. The real question about fracking is whether our geology is actually suitable for economic extraction. If it is we should do it, just as we should be squeezing what we can from the North Sea, whatever those idiots on the QEII bridge think. The alternative is that we import the gas or oil from other places we would really rather not do business with (and our trade deficit gets even worse).
As an avowed environmentalist I reluctantly agree with this IFF combined with a coherent medium term plan to get out of gas and oil much faster than currently planned.
The lack of coherence about what follows it tops the scales back against it, currently, imo. We are just postponing a problem (decarbonising energy) which, the earlier we grapple with, the more we will benefit from (eg growth from expertise in alternative sources of energy)
There's no reason why we cannot both extract as much oil and gas from the North Sea and invest in alternative sources of energy.
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.
Nothing to see here, just the “conservative” Telegraph publishing a bullshit hitjob against the National Trust.
Why do Tories hate Britain?
I don't know if I classify myself as a 'Tory', but for me it's not a case of 'hating' Britain. It's a distrust of large organisations - especially charities - that become immune to criticism because they are so large and influential.
The Telegraph were wrong in this case - but the NT can do some fairly poor things IMO. Criticising the NT is not 'hating' Britain. In the same way criticising the NHS is not 'hating' the NHS or Britain.
In fact, fair criticism is vital. The problem with the Telegraph's story is that it was not fair.
Except this wasn't criticism. It was a plain attack based on a parcel of lies.
An attack - as they're doing on anything that is seen to represent the green lobby - based on the current/outgoing frack the environment shibboleth.
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. The real question about fracking is whether our geology is actually suitable for economic extraction. If it is we should do it, just as we should be squeezing what we can from the North Sea, whatever those idiots on the QEII bridge think. The alternative is that we import the gas or oil from other places we would really rather not do business with (and our trade deficit gets even worse).
There doesn't seem to be much informed opposition to @Richard_Tyndall's opinion that it is a non starter. It is a Trussist bit of science, like Lysenkoism.
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. The real question about fracking is whether our geology is actually suitable for economic extraction. If it is we should do it, just as we should be squeezing what we can from the North Sea, whatever those idiots on the QEII bridge think. The alternative is that we import the gas or oil from other places we would really rather not do business with (and our trade deficit gets even worse).
There doesn't seem to be much informed opposition to @Richard_Tyndall's opinion that it is a non starter. It is a Trussist bit of science, like Lysenkoism.
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. The real question about fracking is whether our geology is actually suitable for economic extraction. If it is we should do it, just as we should be squeezing what we can from the North Sea, whatever those idiots on the QEII bridge think. The alternative is that we import the gas or oil from other places we would really rather not do business with (and our trade deficit gets even worse).
As an avowed environmentalist I reluctantly agree with this IFF combined with a coherent medium term plan to get out of gas and oil much faster than currently planned.
The lack of coherence about what follows it tops the scales back against it, currently, imo. We are just postponing a problem (decarbonising energy) which, the earlier we grapple with, the more we will benefit from (eg growth from expertise in alternative sources of energy)
There's no reason why we cannot both extract as much oil and gas from the North Sea and invest in alternative sources of energy.
That’s what I’m arguing for. But I fear at the moment we are doing the former in place of doing the latter at the scale we need. We should incentivise investment in alternatives far more than we are. It will pay itself back in droves.
Andrew Neil @afneil · 9m Liz Truss actually won the vote on fracking in the Commons last night. It is part of her special magic that she managed to make it look like a chaotic defeat.
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.
The trouble is, Westminster is full of people (within one's own faction, of course) who'll blow smoke up your own arsehole.
You learn to ignore the rest.
Who were the 32 Conservative MPs who backed Braverman ?
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.
The trouble is, Westminster is full of people (within one's own faction, of course) who'll blow smoke up your own arsehole.
You learn to ignore the rest.
YouGov’s survey of members showed practically zero support for Suella, and that’s among the criminally insane, ie her natural constituency.
One fears that Suella’s ring piece is smoke-damaged beyond repair.
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.
If there are 120 Tory MPs prepared to inflict another membership vote on the Party, then it is best the MPs are wiped away and replaced in a decade or more.
That said, despite all that has passed so far, I still don't see a General Election resulting from the current chaos. Peer over the edge, pause, step back to "regroup" under a safer pair of hands.
Indeed, Labour MPs imposed Brown for 3 years as PM without him ever winning a general election. There is no reason Sunak could not become PM by coronation of Tory MPs and lead the party and country until 2024/25. He even now has the support of most Tory Members
There are a number of reasons and you know it. The Labour Party in 2007-2010 had the usual faults and divisions but it was generally happy to coalesce around Brown. The Conservative Party in 2022 couldn’t stick together behind anyone if you poured a vat of superglue over them. The Conservative Party, if you want an analogy with Labour, is at the worst of the Corbyn years. Difference is that your party claims to form a “government”.
No, it would need Braverman to be leader to be at the Corbyn stage.
Blairites were also never that happy with Brown and ministers resigned in 2009 calling for Brown to quit. He still had most Labour MPs behind him though.
Truss just needs to be replaced by a PM most Tory MPs can get behind until the next general election, probably now Sunak who won more Tory MPs support than Truss in the final MPs ballot anyway
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. The real question about fracking is whether our geology is actually suitable for economic extraction. If it is we should do it, just as we should be squeezing what we can from the North Sea, whatever those idiots on the QEII bridge think. The alternative is that we import the gas or oil from other places we would really rather not do business with (and our trade deficit gets even worse).
There doesn't seem to be much informed opposition to @Richard_Tyndall's opinion that it is a non starter. It is a Trussist bit of science, like Lysenkoism.
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.
If there are 120 Tory MPs prepared to inflict another membership vote on the Party, then it is best the MPs are wiped away and replaced in a decade or more.
That said, despite all that has passed so far, I still don't see a General Election resulting from the current chaos. Peer over the edge, pause, step back to "regroup" under a safer pair of hands.
I'd say it's 50/50 at this point. Your case is a rational one, but they are no longer an entirely rational party. Brexit has wrought divisions which aren't easily appreciated by those of us who are fundamentally pragmatists. I'm not arguing about the issue itself, as that's irrelevant for what's going on now. It's a matter of factional identity, and for large numbers of MPs that has come to supersede any loyalty to the party.
It's a bit like the Corn Laws. Not one person in ten who knows that split the Tory party has any clear idea now what the argument was all about.
Andrew Neil @afneil · 9m Liz Truss actually won the vote on fracking in the Commons last night. It is part of her special magic that she managed to make it look like a chaotic defeat.
To quote TSE's parallel, Neville Chamberlain won the vote on the Norway debate by a huge margin.
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.
If there are 120 Tory MPs prepared to inflict another membership vote on the Party, then it is best the MPs are wiped away and replaced in a decade or more.
That said, despite all that has passed so far, I still don't see a General Election resulting from the current chaos. Peer over the edge, pause, step back to "regroup" under a safer pair of hands.
Indeed, Labour MPs imposed Brown for 3 years as PM without him ever winning a general election. There is no reason Sunak could not become PM by coronation of Tory MPs and lead the party and country until 2024/25. He even now has the support of most Tory Members
There are a number of reasons and you know it. The Labour Party in 2007-2010 had the usual faults and divisions but it was generally happy to coalesce around Brown. The Conservative Party in 2022 couldn’t stick together behind anyone if you poured a vat of superglue over them. The Conservative Party, if you want an analogy with Labour, is at the worst of the Corbyn years. Difference is that your party claims to form a “government”.
No, it would need Braverman to be leader to be at the Corbyn stage.
Blairites were also never than happy with Brown and ministers resigned in 2009 calling for Brown to quit. He still had most Labour MPs behind him though.
Truss just needs to be replaced by a PM most Tory MPs can get behind until the next general election, probably Sunak who won more Tory MPs support than Truss in the final MPs ballot anyway
You’re beyond Corbyn levels of dysfunction. Way way beyond.
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.
Nothing to see here, just the “conservative” Telegraph publishing a bullshit hitjob against the National Trust.
Why do Tories hate Britain?
I don't know if I classify myself as a 'Tory', but for me it's not a case of 'hating' Britain. It's a distrust of large organisations - especially charities - that become immune to criticism because they are so large and influential.
The Telegraph were wrong in this case - but the NT can do some fairly poor things IMO. Criticising the NT is not 'hating' Britain. In the same way criticising the NHS is not 'hating' the NHS or Britain.
In fact, fair criticism is vital. The problem with the Telegraph's story is that it was not fair.
Except this wasn't criticism. It was a plain attack based on a parcel of lies.
Remember the hate job about the NT talking about the slavery significance of a statue of a black woman in chains at Armstrong's house, Cragside, here on PB as elsewhere? Edit: as if they had picked it out from a job lot in a store somewhere and put it out to celebrate Black History Month or something so as to get wokist credentials? It was actually bought by Armstrong for its slavery significance and displayed for that reason in the niche exactly where it is today. NT wasn't even digging into hidden history when it remarked on that.
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. The real question about fracking is whether our geology is actually suitable for economic extraction. If it is we should do it, just as we should be squeezing what we can from the North Sea, whatever those idiots on the QEII bridge think. The alternative is that we import the gas or oil from other places we would really rather not do business with (and our trade deficit gets even worse).
There doesn't seem to be much informed opposition to @Richard_Tyndall's opinion that it is a non starter. It is a Trussist bit of science, like Lysenkoism.
Full Marx for the parallel.
Your puns are starting to raise Red Flags.
The problem with Communist puns is, as I am finding, they’re not funny unless everyone gets them.
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.
The trouble is, Westminster is full of people (within one's own faction, of course) who'll blow smoke up your own arsehole.
You learn to ignore the rest.
YouGov’s survey of members showed practically zero support for Suella, and that’s among the criminally insane, ie her natural constituency.
One fears that Suella’s ring piece is smoke-damaged beyond repair.
Braverman has no chance of being PM, she has a chance of being Leader of the Opposition to a Starmer government
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.
If there are 120 Tory MPs prepared to inflict another membership vote on the Party, then it is best the MPs are wiped away and replaced in a decade or more.
That said, despite all that has passed so far, I still don't see a General Election resulting from the current chaos. Peer over the edge, pause, step back to "regroup" under a safer pair of hands.
Indeed, Labour MPs imposed Brown for 3 years as PM without him ever winning a general election. There is no reason Sunak could not become PM by coronation of Tory MPs and lead the party and country until 2024/25. He even now has the support of most Tory Members
There are a number of reasons and you know it. The Labour Party in 2007-2010 had the usual faults and divisions but it was generally happy to coalesce around Brown. The Conservative Party in 2022 couldn’t stick together behind anyone if you poured a vat of superglue over them. The Conservative Party, if you want an analogy with Labour, is at the worst of the Corbyn years. Difference is that your party claims to form a “government”.
No, it would need Braverman to be leader to be at the Corbyn stage.
Blairites were also never than happy with Brown and ministers resigned in 2009 calling for Brown to quit. He still had most Labour MPs behind him though.
Truss just needs to be replaced by a PM most Tory MPs can get behind until the next general election, probably Sunak who won more Tory MPs support than Truss in the final MPs ballot anyway
You’re beyond Corbyn levels of dysfunction. Way way beyond.
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. The real question about fracking is whether our geology is actually suitable for economic extraction. If it is we should do it, just as we should be squeezing what we can from the North Sea, whatever those idiots on the QEII bridge think. The alternative is that we import the gas or oil from other places we would really rather not do business with (and our trade deficit gets even worse).
There doesn't seem to be much informed opposition to @Richard_Tyndall's opinion that it is a non starter. It is a Trussist bit of science, like Lysenkoism.
Full Marx for the parallel.
Your puns are starting to raise Red Flags.
Don't know, there are some nice new Engels in his wit.
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. The real question about fracking is whether our geology is actually suitable for economic extraction. If it is we should do it, just as we should be squeezing what we can from the North Sea, whatever those idiots on the QEII bridge think. The alternative is that we import the gas or oil from other places we would really rather not do business with (and our trade deficit gets even worse).
As an avowed environmentalist I reluctantly agree with this IFF combined with a coherent medium term plan to get out of gas and oil much faster than currently planned.
The lack of coherence about what follows it tops the scales back against it, currently, imo. We are just postponing a problem (decarbonising energy) which, the earlier we grapple with, the more we will benefit from (eg growth from expertise in alternative sources of energy)
There's no reason why we cannot both extract as much oil and gas from the North Sea and invest in alternative sources of energy.
That’s what I’m arguing for. But I fear at the moment we are doing the former in place of doing the latter at the scale we need. We should incentivise investment in alternatives far more than we are. It will pay itself back in droves.
I've no idea how much we are investing in energy production and development or how much we should be doing.
But there's many billions being invested in energy consumption.
Which is indicative of the underlying problem in this country - we think consumption is far more important than production and that consumption must be protected while production has to look after itself.
Andrew Neil @afneil · 9m Liz Truss actually won the vote on fracking in the Commons last night. It is part of her special magic that she managed to make it look like a chaotic defeat.
Not only that, she won it by a larger majority than the nominal Tory majority in the House of Commons. 96 votes.
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.
It's the only chance he'll ever get to be PM though.
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.
The Republic of Ireland model?
I wasn't aware of that, but having had a quick look; yes, something akin to that.
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. The real question about fracking is whether our geology is actually suitable for economic extraction. If it is we should do it, just as we should be squeezing what we can from the North Sea, whatever those idiots on the QEII bridge think. The alternative is that we import the gas or oil from other places we would really rather not do business with (and our trade deficit gets even worse).
There doesn't seem to be much informed opposition to @Richard_Tyndall's opinion that it is a non starter. It is a Trussist bit of science, like Lysenkoism.
Full Marx for the parallel.
Your puns are starting to raise Red Flags.
The problem with Communist puns is, as I am finding, they’re not funny unless everyone gets them.
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. The real question about fracking is whether our geology is actually suitable for economic extraction. If it is we should do it, just as we should be squeezing what we can from the North Sea, whatever those idiots on the QEII bridge think. The alternative is that we import the gas or oil from other places we would really rather not do business with (and our trade deficit gets even worse).
As an avowed environmentalist I reluctantly agree with this IFF combined with a coherent medium term plan to get out of gas and oil much faster than currently planned.
The lack of coherence about what follows it tops the scales back against it, currently, imo. We are just postponing a problem (decarbonising energy) which, the earlier we grapple with, the more we will benefit from (eg growth from expertise in alternative sources of energy)
There's no reason why we cannot both extract as much oil and gas from the North Sea and invest in alternative sources of energy.
That’s what I’m arguing for. But I fear at the moment we are doing the former in place of doing the latter at the scale we need. We should incentivise investment in alternatives far more than we are. It will pay itself back in droves.
I've no idea how much we are investing in energy production and development or how much we should be doing.
But there's many billions being invested in energy consumption.
Which is indicative of the underlying problem in this country - we think consumption is far more important than production and that consumption must be protected while production has to look after itself.
Truss regards energy efficiency as communism, or something. So when you say “we”, presumably you are talking about her and yourself.
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. The real question about fracking is whether our geology is actually suitable for economic extraction. If it is we should do it, just as we should be squeezing what we can from the North Sea, whatever those idiots on the QEII bridge think. The alternative is that we import the gas or oil from other places we would really rather not do business with (and our trade deficit gets even worse).
There doesn't seem to be much informed opposition to @Richard_Tyndall's opinion that it is a non starter. It is a Trussist bit of science, like Lysenkoism.
Full Marx for the parallel.
Your puns are starting to raise Red Flags.
Don't know, there are some nice new Engels in his wit.
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.
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.
Well people hold the role, sometimes, so it is formal, it just has no constitutional significance in terms if an order of succession, since we don't have such a thing. But being Deputy might make a temporary emergency pick easier - if they actually were no.2.
We could have a law setting out who the palace sends for in an urgent PM has a deadly stroke situation too, so another thing that a complete codification could do but isnt a requirement for.
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.
The trouble is, Westminster is full of people (within one's own faction, of course) who'll blow smoke up your own arsehole.
You learn to ignore the rest.
YouGov’s survey of members showed practically zero support for Suella, and that’s among the criminally insane, ie her natural constituency.
One fears that Suella’s ring piece is smoke-damaged beyond repair.
Braverman has no chance of being PM, she has a chance of being Leader of the Opposition to a Starmer government
Given the mistakes she's made recently (email, the spat with India, and generally idiotic posturing) and the childish tone of her departure letter I think she's not far off the worst possible choice.
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.
The trouble is, Westminster is full of people (within one's own faction, of course) who'll blow smoke up your own arsehole.
You learn to ignore the rest.
YouGov’s survey of members showed practically zero support for Suella, and that’s among the criminally insane, ie her natural constituency.
One fears that Suella’s ring piece is smoke-damaged beyond repair.
Braverman has no chance of being PM, she has a chance of being Leader of the Opposition to a Starmer government
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.
It's the only chance he'll ever get to be PM though.
The allure of an impossible job, which weirdly retains some cachet despite clearly not being as prestigious or powerful as it once was. Anyone would have to be a massive egotist to want to become pm now and be the figurehead of this failing rabble.
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.
If there are 120 Tory MPs prepared to inflict another membership vote on the Party, then it is best the MPs are wiped away and replaced in a decade or more.
That said, despite all that has passed so far, I still don't see a General Election resulting from the current chaos. Peer over the edge, pause, step back to "regroup" under a safer pair of hands.
Indeed, Labour MPs imposed Brown for 3 years as PM without him ever winning a general election. There is no reason Sunak could not become PM by coronation of Tory MPs and lead the party and country until 2024/25. He even now has the support of most Tory Members
There are a number of reasons and you know it. The Labour Party in 2007-2010 had the usual faults and divisions but it was generally happy to coalesce around Brown. The Conservative Party in 2022 couldn’t stick together behind anyone if you poured a vat of superglue over them. The Conservative Party, if you want an analogy with Labour, is at the worst of the Corbyn years. Difference is that your party claims to form a “government”.
No, it would need Braverman to be leader to be at the Corbyn stage.
Blairites were also never than happy with Brown and ministers resigned in 2009 calling for Brown to quit. He still had most Labour MPs behind him though.
Truss just needs to be replaced by a PM most Tory MPs can get behind until the next general election, probably Sunak who won more Tory MPs support than Truss in the final MPs ballot anyway
You’re beyond Corbyn levels of dysfunction. Way way beyond.
Really? 172 out of 232 Labour MPs voted no confidence in Corbyn in 2016 but he survived as leader for almost another 4 years
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.
The trouble is, Westminster is full of people (within one's own faction, of course) who'll blow smoke up your own arsehole.
You learn to ignore the rest.
YouGov’s survey of members showed practically zero support for Suella, and that’s among the criminally insane, ie her natural constituency.
One fears that Suella’s ring piece is smoke-damaged beyond repair.
Braverman has no chance of being PM, she has a chance of being Leader of the Opposition to a Starmer government
Given the mistakes she's made recently (email, the spat with India, and generally idiotic posturing) and the childish tone of her departure letter I think she's not far off the worst possible choice.
Since at least 2016 the worst option has always prevailed in British politics.
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.
The trouble is, Westminster is full of people (within one's own faction, of course) who'll blow smoke up your own arsehole.
You learn to ignore the rest.
YouGov’s survey of members showed practically zero support for Suella, and that’s among the criminally insane, ie her natural constituency.
One fears that Suella’s ring piece is smoke-damaged beyond repair.
Braverman has no chance of being PM, she has a chance of being Leader of the Opposition to a Starmer government
Good morning
The conservative party will not even be the opposition, and I doubt anyone knows who will lead the 4 or even 2 remaining conservative mps
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.
If there are 120 Tory MPs prepared to inflict another membership vote on the Party, then it is best the MPs are wiped away and replaced in a decade or more.
That said, despite all that has passed so far, I still don't see a General Election resulting from the current chaos. Peer over the edge, pause, step back to "regroup" under a safer pair of hands.
Indeed, Labour MPs imposed Brown for 3 years as PM without him ever winning a general election. There is no reason Sunak could not become PM by coronation of Tory MPs and lead the party and country until 2024/25. He even now has the support of most Tory Members
There are a number of reasons and you know it. The Labour Party in 2007-2010 had the usual faults and divisions but it was generally happy to coalesce around Brown. The Conservative Party in 2022 couldn’t stick together behind anyone if you poured a vat of superglue over them. The Conservative Party, if you want an analogy with Labour, is at the worst of the Corbyn years. Difference is that your party claims to form a “government”.
No, it would need Braverman to be leader to be at the Corbyn stage.
Blairites were also never than happy with Brown and ministers resigned in 2009 calling for Brown to quit. He still had most Labour MPs behind him though.
Truss just needs to be replaced by a PM most Tory MPs can get behind until the next general election, probably Sunak who won more Tory MPs support than Truss in the final MPs ballot anyway
You’re beyond Corbyn levels of dysfunction. Way way beyond.
Really? 172 out of 232 Labour MPs voted no confidence in Corbyn in 2016 but he survived as leader for almost another 4 years
Remind me of the physical altercations in the lobby? Missed that.
Complete alternative reality moment by the GOP candidate.
This started with GHW Bush, or a little before. Thanks primarily to Fox News, each side in America has its own facts. Not opinions, facts. This is now exacerbated by the web, where those woke internet giants, Twitter and Youtube, amplify right wing material.
'The business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has denied Tory MPs were bullied and manhandled at last night’s fracking vote.
Rees-Mogg said “to characterise it as bullying is mistaken” and that a “perfectly normal discussion” had taken place with some MPs “who weren’t sure whether it was a confidence vote or not”, the Times reports.
The only physical contact was “a female affectionately patting somebody on the back”, he said.
He added that it would be “quite improper to manhandle people in the division lobby”.'
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.
The trouble is, Westminster is full of people (within one's own faction, of course) who'll blow smoke up your own arsehole.
You learn to ignore the rest.
YouGov’s survey of members showed practically zero support for Suella, and that’s among the criminally insane, ie her natural constituency.
One fears that Suella’s ring piece is smoke-damaged beyond repair.
Braverman has no chance of being PM, she has a chance of being Leader of the Opposition to a Starmer government
God help us all.
Looks like He's busy trying to bring about a two-term Labour Government.
'The business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has denied Tory MPs were bullied and manhandled at last night’s fracking vote.
Rees-Mogg said “to characterise it as bullying is mistaken” and that a “perfectly normal discussion” had taken place with some MPs “who weren’t sure whether it was a confidence vote or not”, the Times reports.
The only physical contact was “a female affectionately patting somebody on the back”, he said.
He added that it would be “quite improper to manhandle people in the division lobby”.'
Reminds me of Alasdair Campbell's "robust" on HIGNFY
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.
If there are 120 Tory MPs prepared to inflict another membership vote on the Party, then it is best the MPs are wiped away and replaced in a decade or more.
That said, despite all that has passed so far, I still don't see a General Election resulting from the current chaos. Peer over the edge, pause, step back to "regroup" under a safer pair of hands.
I'd say it's 50/50 at this point. Your case is a rational one, but they are no longer an entirely rational party. Brexit has wrought divisions which aren't easily appreciated by those of us who are fundamentally pragmatists. I'm not arguing about the issue itself, as that's irrelevant for what's going on now. It's a matter of factional identity, and for large numbers of MPs that has come to supersede any loyalty to the party.
It's a bit like the Corn Laws. Not one person in ten who knows that split the Tory party has any clear idea now what the argument was all about.
Yeah.
50/50 on an election before 2024 feels about right. If anything, perhaps undercooking it a bit. Somewhere between 50% & 66% maybe?
The 76 Majority, or whatever it is now, is illusory. That was a now-irrelevant, get-brexit-done, anti-Corbyn, fantasy economics coalition that Boris was able to pull off with his incredible charisma.
There’s no positive majority among the blues for anything, right now. The only question left is whether the turkeys will vote for Christmas.
As soon as Suella published her resignation letter, I laid the “2024 or later election” at 1.39 (72%). Currently trading at 1.62/1.74, although pathetic liquidity.
In fairness to the Chief Whip trying to whip the current Conservative party must make herding cats look like a walk in the park. So many factions, so little in common, so many loud mouth opinionated twats who want the world to know what they think and utter incompetence in the form of direction from the centre with no core beliefs or principles to guide anyone.
The Conservatives will undoubtedly benefit from a period in opposition to rediscover what they are actually for. The risk is that no one will actually care anymore.
‘In fairness to the Chief Whip trying to whip the current Conservative party must make herding cats look like a walk in the park. So many factions, so little in common, so many loud mouth opinionated twats who want the world to know what they think and utter incompetence in the form of direction from the centre with no core beliefs or principles to guide anyone.’
'The business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has denied Tory MPs were bullied and manhandled at last night’s fracking vote.
Rees-Mogg said “to characterise it as bullying is mistaken” and that a “perfectly normal discussion” had taken place with some MPs “who weren’t sure whether it was a confidence vote or not”, the Times reports.
The only physical contact was “a female affectionately patting somebody on the back”, he said.
He added that it would be “quite improper to manhandle people in the division lobby”.'
Which part of the UK has the strongest support for the Conservative Party?
Well, according to Deltapoll, the surprising answer is… wait for it… Wales!
Con VI:
Wales 32% Rest of South 27% North 24% London 19% Midlands 17% Scotland 9%
(Deltapoll, 13-17 October)
Midlands 17%
Just absorb that.
Midlands 17%
Of sweet lord.
This is where it would be particularly helpful to look at a few different polls in aggregate, because random variation in the subsamples will be large, and Wales is by far the lowest population area, so the size of the subsample will be smallest, and so the margin of error on that subsample will be largest - therefore, even if Tory support was even across the different regions, you would expect to see the highest score for the Tories in Wales if you looked at the scores across a few polls and picked the highest.
So you'd really want to check that this pattern was consistent across several polls.
You are of course completely correct.
But please don’t deny a weary old SNP activist his small pleasures in life. I’m in Schadenfreude heaven.
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.
If there are 120 Tory MPs prepared to inflict another membership vote on the Party, then it is best the MPs are wiped away and replaced in a decade or more.
That said, despite all that has passed so far, I still don't see a General Election resulting from the current chaos. Peer over the edge, pause, step back to "regroup" under a safer pair of hands.
I'd say it's 50/50 at this point. Your case is a rational one, but they are no longer an entirely rational party. Brexit has wrought divisions which aren't easily appreciated by those of us who are fundamentally pragmatists. I'm not arguing about the issue itself, as that's irrelevant for what's going on now. It's a matter of factional identity, and for large numbers of MPs that has come to supersede any loyalty to the party.
It's a bit like the Corn Laws. Not one person in ten who knows that split the Tory party has any clear idea now what the argument was all about.
Whilst I agree with the thrust of your point, "no longer an entirely rational party" is such a gross understatement, they are now driven mostly by negative emotions. Their MPs are angry, confused, scared, dejected and frustrated not just at the situation they are in, but with each other.
Which part of the UK has the strongest support for the Conservative Party?
Well, according to Deltapoll, the surprising answer is… wait for it… Wales!
Con VI:
Wales 32% Rest of South 27% North 24% London 19% Midlands 17% Scotland 9%
(Deltapoll, 13-17 October)
Midlands 17%
Just absorb that.
Midlands 17%
Of sweet lord.
This is where it would be particularly helpful to look at a few different polls in aggregate, because random variation in the subsamples will be large, and Wales is by far the lowest population area, so the size of the subsample will be smallest, and so the margin of error on that subsample will be largest - therefore, even if Tory support was even across the different regions, you would expect to see the highest score for the Tories in Wales if you looked at the scores across a few polls and picked the highest.
So you'd really want to check that this pattern was consistent across several polls.
You are of course completely correct.
But please don’t deny a weary old SNP activist his small pleasures in life. I’m in Schadenfreude heaven.
Midlands 17%
Just absorb that.
Midlands 17%
Of sweet lord.
Previously the last redoubt of pro Johnson, pro Brexit yamyammery.
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.
The trouble is, Westminster is full of people (within one's own faction, of course) who'll blow smoke up your own arsehole.
You learn to ignore the rest.
YouGov’s survey of members showed practically zero support for Suella, and that’s among the criminally insane, ie her natural constituency.
One fears that Suella’s ring piece is smoke-damaged beyond repair.
Braverman has no chance of being PM, she has a chance of being Leader of the Opposition to a Starmer government
Good morning
The conservative party will not even be the opposition, and I doubt anyone knows who will lead the 4 or even 2 remaining conservative mps
Given Sunak likely replaces Truss before Christmas it will, they will still lose but Sunak will save enough seats to get them to 200 to 250 MPs
Comments
The problem is "and be replaced with whom". There is no unity candidate. There is no unity - a lot of MPs and their hard right GBeebies commentator friends screeching on about remainer plots. The replacement - the sacking - of the supposedly wonderful Braverman and the installation of remainer snake Michael Green is supposedly the final straw for them.
The country will not permit another protracted period of Tory blood letting in the form of another leadership contest. The new leader won't command support of a chunk of the parliamentary party whomever they are, and would have a party poll rating in the teens.
Which is why collapse into a GE now looks like a strong possibility. Your party are simply incapable of governing. Of disciplining themselves. Of putting the country above their internecine factional warfare.
The Telegraph were wrong in this case - but the NT can do some fairly poor things IMO. Criticising the NT is not 'hating' Britain. In the same way criticising the NHS is not 'hating' the NHS or Britain.
In fact, fair criticism is vital. The problem with the Telegraph's story is that it was not fair.
More declared Mordaunt supporters switched to Truss than to Sunak by some margin.
That said, despite all that has passed so far, I still don't see a General Election resulting from the current chaos. Peer over the edge, pause, step back to "regroup" under a safer pair of hands.
They only exist at current odds due to wishful thinking.
The thing is not the office doesn’t exist - after all, a good argument could be made that there is no office of ‘Prime Minister’ either - but that it has no special constitutional significance unlike, say, the US Vice Presidency.
This has been partially caused by the pandering to and over-promotion of a number of MPs particularly from the ERG wing which has given them too much influence over the party (or at least given them that impression). The rot started with Johnson putting characters like Braverman, Rees-Mogg and Dorries into the cabinet, but made worse by Truss by elevating them (ok, sans Dorries) into bigger roles and building a cabinet of her core supporters (who, like the woman herself, aren’t very good).
In many ways I am glad that it is all coming home to roost for them. But I do have a concern that a fractured party will hide the fact that there is a strong centre-right tradition in the country that will find itself politically homeless. This time around the Labour Party might be the only place for it to go, but it is not great for our democracy if one party is winning 450+ seats in Parliament like the polls are suggesting.
I think we are probably headed for a late spring/early summer GE. Truss is going to have to go, and somehow the replacement has to steady the ship. But they’ll have to confirm to the public they’ll go to the country next year to combat the legitimacy crisis that’s now engulfing the whole debate (wrongly, in my view, by the way, but thems the breaks). I think that timing is just about the maximum they can hold it for before the party starts collapsing on itself again. A temporary truce and a GE next year. That’s the only way for them to come out of this with any chance of survival.
Is this a idea to get her out? Seems to be.....
Admittedly that would have been better than what’s transpired.
Had the thought that Braverman had deliberately made the procedural mistake so that she could self-righteously resign on a point of principle.
Whatever the truth of Truss's progress through the lobbies, she was recorded as a No.
Won't save her though.
https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/1372?byMember=False#notrecorded
But he would need assurances the person was not planning to run for leader at same time.
It is deliberately fraying the fabric of our society, and that’s deeply un-conservative.
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1582665358489669636?s=20&t=g1is5R42-IiZqyedJhlAEA
The Conservatives will undoubtedly benefit from a period in opposition to rediscover what they are actually for. The risk is that no one will actually care anymore.
It is like GOP. At first it was Tea Party types accusing anyone who could govern as being a RINO. Now it is Trump cultists saying only the most useless idiots can be allowed to win primaries because they are the ones who will follow Trump into another insurrection.
The lack of coherence about what follows it tops the scales back against it, currently, imo. We are just postponing a problem (decarbonising energy) which, the earlier we grapple with, the more we will benefit from (eg growth from expertise in alternative sources of energy)
Mea culpa.
Incompetence and over-ambition can explain much without any political beliefs underlying them.
And the political belief which started things off was that of lower taxes always being both possible and preferable.
You learn to ignore the rest.
If nuclear blackmail succeeds, then it will shortly be repeated, and repeated.
And how do you make a deal with someone who has already broken every treaty they have agreed in respect of Ukraine in any event ?
The author of the original piece has rather interesting affiliations, too.
It was a plain attack based on a parcel of lies.
@afneil
·
9m
Liz Truss actually won the vote on fracking in the Commons last night. It is part of her special magic that she managed to make it look like a chaotic defeat.
One fears that Suella’s ring piece is smoke-damaged beyond repair.
Blairites were also never that happy with Brown and ministers resigned in 2009 calling for Brown to quit. He still had most Labour MPs behind him though.
Truss just needs to be replaced by a PM most Tory MPs can get behind until the next general election, probably now Sunak who won more Tory MPs support than Truss in the final MPs ballot anyway
Your case is a rational one, but they are no longer an entirely rational party.
Brexit has wrought divisions which aren't easily appreciated by those of us who are fundamentally pragmatists. I'm not arguing about the issue itself, as that's irrelevant for what's going on now. It's a matter of factional identity, and for large numbers of MPs that has come to supersede any loyalty to the party.
It's a bit like the Corn Laws. Not one person in ten who knows that split the Tory party has any clear idea now what the argument was all about.
It didn't help...
https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1582894307169951744
Complete alternative reality moment by the GOP candidate.
But there's many billions being invested in energy consumption.
Which is indicative of the underlying problem in this country - we think consumption is far more important than production and that consumption must be protected while production has to look after itself.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/12/daily-telegraph-forced-correct-false-brexit-claim-boris-johnson
We could have a law setting out who the palace sends for in an urgent PM has a deadly stroke situation too, so another thing that a complete codification could do but isnt a requirement for.
Mr. Carnyx, to be fair, the Italians do change their governments rather rapidly.
The conservative party will not even be the opposition, and I doubt anyone knows who will lead the 4 or even 2 remaining conservative mps
'The business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, has denied Tory MPs were bullied and manhandled at last night’s fracking vote.
Rees-Mogg said “to characterise it as bullying is mistaken” and that a “perfectly normal discussion” had taken place with some MPs “who weren’t sure whether it was a confidence vote or not”, the Times reports.
The only physical contact was “a female affectionately patting somebody on the back”, he said.
He added that it would be “quite improper to manhandle people in the division lobby”.'
50/50 on an election before 2024 feels about right. If anything, perhaps undercooking it a bit. Somewhere between 50% & 66% maybe?
The 76 Majority, or whatever it is now, is illusory. That was a now-irrelevant, get-brexit-done, anti-Corbyn, fantasy economics coalition that Boris was able to pull off with his incredible charisma.
There’s no positive majority among the blues for anything, right now. The only question left is whether the turkeys will vote for Christmas.
As soon as Suella published her resignation letter, I laid the “2024 or later election” at 1.39 (72%). Currently trading at 1.62/1.74, although pathetic liquidity.
Should be evens, minimum, imo.
Akin to the role of PB moderator?
She tells @BBCr4today: “That’s what we will be working towards and I hope we will be able to do that.”
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1582999195040256000
I think we had one 19% last week. Could we see a sub 15%?
I hope so.
But please don’t deny a weary old SNP activist his small pleasures in life. I’m in Schadenfreude heaven.
Midlands 17%
Just absorb that.
Midlands 17%
Of sweet lord.
'The optics don't look good....'
That's up there with Hirohito's 'The war's developed not particularly to Japan's advantage.....'
They do not last together til 2024.