Howdy, Stranger!

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

Latest next PM betting – politicalbetting.com

13»

Comments

  • DougSeal said:

    ...

    Scott_xP said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 53% (+4)
    CON: 22% (-3)
    LDEM: 11% (-)
    GRN: 5% (-1)

    via @techneUK, 19 - 20 Oct
    https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/10/britainpredicts

    I think when Johnson returns next week we can reverse those Lab and Con figures.

    Your dream of ever voting Conservative again looks like a decade away to me.
    Why would the figures be reversed?
    You know I am absolutely certain that Mexicanpete is pulling a fast one with tongue buried deep in cheek but then, every once in a while, I just wonder.... I just don't quite get what his game is.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103

    kle4 said:

    Might not be enough, but necessary.

    Good source reckons 1922 going to impose a nominations threshold of *100 MPs*

    That will narrow the field very, very quickly


    https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1583123851709333504?cxt=HHwWgICqiaywsfgrAAAA

    Can Johnson pull 100??
    Trus got 113. Could be close.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,568
    kle4 said:

    Might not be enough, but necessary.

    Good source reckons 1922 going to impose a nominations threshold of *100 MPs*

    That will narrow the field very, very quickly


    https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1583123851709333504?cxt=HHwWgICqiaywsfgrAAAA

    Will Boris get 100? Are there that many nutters prepared to back a disgraced ex-PM still under investigation?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,592
    Krishnan Guru-Murthy suspended for a week.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63331322

    We desperately need professionalism back in both journalism and politics (well, perhaps we need to get professionalism in journalism; I'm unsure it was ever there in the first place... ;) )
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664
    edited October 2022
    Johnson shouldn't be allowed to stand:

    From the Conservative Party Constitution Schedule 2 page 18.
    https://public.conservatives.com/organisation-department/202101/Conservative Party Constitution as amended January 2021.pdf

    "RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
    1 The Leader shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members.
    2 A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent Leadership election."


    Definition of 'consequent':
    adjective
    1. following as a result or effect.

    This leadership election follows as a clear effect of Johnson's resignation.

    You're welcome.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,664
    What if the next Tory leader is also a dud and implodes. Stranger things have happened. It’s a difficult environment. Anything can happen. 50:50 the next administration falls apart in 6 months if the lights go out.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,005

    kle4 said:

    Might not be enough, but necessary.

    Good source reckons 1922 going to impose a nominations threshold of *100 MPs*

    That will narrow the field very, very quickly


    https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1583123851709333504?cxt=HHwWgICqiaywsfgrAAAA

    Can Johnson pull 100??
    Can a MP nominate just one person? If so a maximum of 3 candidates. Rishi must have that as he did last time. Can Penny get there?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Let’s hope so:

    Jacob Rees-Mogg drove the toppling of Theresa May.
    Now he's been the unwitting trigger for the demise of both Johnson and Truss.
    3 strikes and he's out?


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1583083400508104705
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    Johnson shouldn't be allowed to stand:

    From the Conservative Party Constitution Schedule 2 page 18.
    https://public.conservatives.com/organisation-department/202101/Conservative Party Constitution as amended January 2021.pdf

    "RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
    1 The Leader shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members.
    2 A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent Leadership election."


    Definition of 'consequent':
    adjective
    1. following as a result or effect.

    This leadership election follows as a clear effect of Johnson's resignation.

    You're welcome.

    Nice try.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    Farooq said:

    DavidL said:

    What I want is Rishi as PM, Hunt Chancellor, Mordaunt HS, Gove levelling up Secy and all round coordinator, Wallace as Defence, the Saj back at health, Badenoch possibly Chief Secretary to Treasury etc. A government that makes the most use of the pool of talent available such as it is and with enough experience not to fall over its own feet on a daily basis.

    An election would be better
    Sure, but they won't trigger that, so next best thing - it won't stop a Labour victory to come.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    The left wing press exists and are not impotent, but they generally lack the reach, the puissance, and the money of the right wing press.

    They are also, perhaps structurally so, less power-focused and more interested in insular issues.

    "Left wing" and "right wing" press as terms are meaningless.

    It is the press that people choose to consume. Nothing preventing them buying Socialist Worker or the BNP Daily if they so wish.
    You are very naive.
    Oh god another one who is sure they are not affected by press bias but thinks that everyone else is.

    Smartest guy in the room, eh?
    Press bias exists.
    Everyone is affected by it.
    The best one can is try to eliminate inappropriate funding (foreign, criminal) of news, and fund avowedly independent options.

    It is you who seem to think that you are unaffected by press bias, I’m afraid, since you claim in your first sentence that it doesn’t exist or is “meaningless”
    If you fund "avowedly independent options" then you will recreate all the same biases because they ultimately stem from people themselves. Would a state funded GB News and a state funded Novara Media be better?
    Do you think GB News or Novara Media are “avowedly independent”?

    I was referring to public service broadcasting,
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,159
    kle4 said:

    Might not be enough, but necessary.

    Good source reckons 1922 going to impose a nominations threshold of *100 MPs*

    That will narrow the field very, very quickly


    https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1583123851709333504?cxt=HHwWgICqiaywsfgrAAAA

    With agreement that who ends up 2nd drops out. No need to trouble the venerable members. That's one way.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664

    kle4 said:

    Might not be enough, but necessary.

    Good source reckons 1922 going to impose a nominations threshold of *100 MPs*

    That will narrow the field very, very quickly


    https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1583123851709333504?cxt=HHwWgICqiaywsfgrAAAA

    Will Boris get 100? Are there that many nutters prepared to back a disgraced ex-PM still under investigation?
    They must be hoping only Sunak gets >100. Must be a possibility.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    The left wing press exists and are not impotent, but they generally lack the reach, the puissance, and the money of the right wing press.

    They are also, perhaps structurally so, less power-focused and more interested in insular issues.

    "Left wing" and "right wing" press as terms are meaningless.

    It is the press that people choose to consume. Nothing preventing them buying Socialist Worker or the BNP Daily if they so wish.
    You are very naive.
    Oh god another one who is sure they are not affected by press bias but thinks that everyone else is.

    Smartest guy in the room, eh?
    Press bias exists.
    Everyone is affected by it.
    The best one can is try to eliminate inappropriate funding (foreign, criminal) of news, and fund avowedly independent options.

    It is you who seem to think that you are unaffected by press bias, I’m afraid, since you claim in your first sentence that it doesn’t exist or is “meaningless”
    I said meaningless.

    You have it round the wrong way. It is not bias it is catering to their audience. If you are of a left wing disposition you probably won't buy the Daily Mail.

    Likewise, if you are the Daily Mail and find that there is a ready market for right wing editorials then you will continue to produce right wing editorials.

    It is not bias.

    The Socialist Worker can be bought by anyone but its circulation is tiny. The Daily Mail is read by millions, as is The Mirror. Which suggests that each caters to its own market.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,568
    Obviously the best outcome for all is that Rishi and Penny get enough votes each, with nobody else making 100. Then whoever gets the most MPs is PM, the other concedes and we have nothing to take to the members - and a new PM by Tuesday morning.

    Anything else will be as laughably disastrous as Truss.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,664

    kle4 said:

    Might not be enough, but necessary.

    Good source reckons 1922 going to impose a nominations threshold of *100 MPs*

    That will narrow the field very, very quickly


    https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1583123851709333504?cxt=HHwWgICqiaywsfgrAAAA

    Will Boris get 100? Are there that many nutters prepared to back a disgraced ex-PM still under investigation?
    Are there 100 nutters in the parliamentary Tory party?

    Er….

    Yes.
  • I don't really understand the calls for an immediate election (well, I do, but they are nonsensical): even if Tory turkeys wanted to vote for Xmas, how could the electorate be presented with a choice? One of the two main (or perhaps 'formerly main') parties is in absolutely no position to put together a manifesto programme.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Might not be enough, but necessary.

    Good source reckons 1922 going to impose a nominations threshold of *100 MPs*

    That will narrow the field very, very quickly


    https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1583123851709333504?cxt=HHwWgICqiaywsfgrAAAA

    Will Boris get 100? Are there that many nutters prepared to back a disgraced ex-PM still under investigation?
    Are there 100 nutters in the parliamentary Tory party?

    Er….

    Yes.
    Some of the nutters will roll in behind different candidates.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,159

    kle4 said:

    Might not be enough, but necessary.

    Good source reckons 1922 going to impose a nominations threshold of *100 MPs*

    That will narrow the field very, very quickly


    https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1583123851709333504?cxt=HHwWgICqiaywsfgrAAAA

    Can Johnson pull 100??
    Well, the ERG pushed Truss “over”.
    Add a few Red Wallers, and I say yes.
    ERG aren't all Johnson though.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,749

    Obviously the best outcome for all is that Rishi and Penny get enough votes each, with nobody else making 100. Then whoever gets the most MPs is PM, the other concedes and we have nothing to take to the members - and a new PM by Tuesday morning.

    Anything else will be as laughably disastrous as Truss.

    You seem very sanguine about the prospect of Mordaunt as leader.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    >
    DougSeal said:

    ...

    Scott_xP said:

    Westminster voting intention:

    LAB: 53% (+4)
    CON: 22% (-3)
    LDEM: 11% (-)
    GRN: 5% (-1)

    via @techneUK, 19 - 20 Oct
    https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/10/britainpredicts

    I think when Johnson returns next week we can reverse those Lab and Con figures.

    Your dream of ever voting Conservative again looks like a decade away to me.
    Why would the figures be reversed?
    CON 11%, LDEM 22% looks quite reasonable in that circumstance.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664
    Driver said:

    Johnson shouldn't be allowed to stand:

    From the Conservative Party Constitution Schedule 2 page 18.
    https://public.conservatives.com/organisation-department/202101/Conservative Party Constitution as amended January 2021.pdf

    "RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
    1 The Leader shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members.
    2 A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent Leadership election."


    Definition of 'consequent':
    adjective
    1. following as a result or effect.

    This leadership election follows as a clear effect of Johnson's resignation.

    You're welcome.

    Nice try.
    Doing it for the country I love.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,724
    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Might not be enough, but necessary.

    Good source reckons 1922 going to impose a nominations threshold of *100 MPs*

    That will narrow the field very, very quickly


    https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1583123851709333504?cxt=HHwWgICqiaywsfgrAAAA

    With agreement that who ends up 2nd drops out. No need to trouble the venerable members. That's one way.
    How you gonna get Boris to agree to drop out????
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    edited October 2022
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    The left wing press exists and are not impotent, but they generally lack the reach, the puissance, and the money of the right wing press.

    They are also, perhaps structurally so, less power-focused and more interested in insular issues.

    "Left wing" and "right wing" press as terms are meaningless.

    It is the press that people choose to consume. Nothing preventing them buying Socialist Worker or the BNP Daily if they so wish.
    You are very naive.
    Oh god another one who is sure they are not affected by press bias but thinks that everyone else is.

    Smartest guy in the room, eh?
    Press bias exists.
    Everyone is affected by it.
    The best one can is try to eliminate inappropriate funding (foreign, criminal) of news, and fund avowedly independent options.

    It is you who seem to think that you are unaffected by press bias, I’m afraid, since you claim in your first sentence that it doesn’t exist or is “meaningless”
    I said meaningless.

    You have it round the wrong way. It is not bias it is catering to their audience. If you are of a left wing disposition you probably won't buy the Daily Mail.

    Likewise, if you are the Daily Mail and find that there is a ready market for right wing editorials then you will continue to produce right wing editorials.

    It is not bias.

    The Socialist Worker can be bought by anyone but its circulation is tiny. The Daily Mail is read by millions, as is The Mirror. Which suggests that each caters to its own market.
    You are assuming that people’s preferences are exogenous and not themselves shaped by the news discourse.

    The news “market” doesn’t work like toothpaste or shampoo.

    As I said, you are very naive.
  • DearPBDearPB Posts: 439
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    The left wing press exists and are not impotent, but they generally lack the reach, the puissance, and the money of the right wing press.

    They are also, perhaps structurally so, less power-focused and more interested in insular issues.

    "Left wing" and "right wing" press as terms are meaningless.

    It is the press that people choose to consume. Nothing preventing them buying Socialist Worker or the BNP Daily if they so wish.
    You are very naive.
    Oh god another one who is sure they are not affected by press bias but thinks that everyone else is.

    Smartest guy in the room, eh?
    Press bias exists.
    Everyone is affected by it.
    The best one can is try to eliminate inappropriate funding (foreign, criminal) of news, and fund avowedly independent options.

    It is you who seem to think that you are unaffected by press bias, I’m afraid, since you claim in your first sentence that it doesn’t exist or is “meaningless”
    I said meaningless.

    You have it round the wrong way. It is not bias it is catering to their audience. If you are of a left wing disposition you probably won't buy the Daily Mail.

    Likewise, if you are the Daily Mail and find that there is a ready market for right wing editorials then you will continue to produce right wing editorials.

    It is not bias.

    The Socialist Worker can be bought by anyone but its circulation is tiny. The Daily Mail is read by millions, as is The Mirror. Which suggests that each caters to its own market.
    There are remarkable statistics on the voting habits of newspaper readers - never as homogenous as you expect. As someone who for twenty years read the Guardian as a Tory activist I can attest that it's possible to read a newspaper for other reasons than its editorial line.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    I don't really understand the calls for an immediate election (well, I do, but they are nonsensical): even if Tory turkeys wanted to vote for Xmas, how could the electorate be presented with a choice? One of the two main (or perhaps 'formerly main') parties is in absolutely no position to put together a manifesto programme.

    And nor are the Tories.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,457
    Been discussing with Alastair Meeks.

    Might be worth backing Keir Starmer at 130 for next PM.

    If Boris looks likely to win the Party could split and, therefore, Keir would be more likely to command confidence of the House and actually become next PM *before* Boris can take office as PM from KCIII himself.

    Unlikely? Yes. But not 130/1 unlikely.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Scott_xP said:

    It is worth saying that many Tory MPs tonight are saying they do not believe Boris Johnson will run. They say that if the threshold for nominations is very high, it is unlikely the former PM will risk it. There is no chance of him wanting to risk being defeated.
    https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1583129150012813312

    I wondered when the “avoid humiliation” argument would surface….
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,664

    I don't really understand the calls for an immediate election (well, I do, but they are nonsensical): even if Tory turkeys wanted to vote for Xmas, how could the electorate be presented with a choice? One of the two main (or perhaps 'formerly main') parties is in absolutely no position to put together a manifesto programme.

    Elections are not there for the convenience of the Tory party. We need a government and a decent opposition. What the Tories do is perhaps irrelevant, but definitely secondary. Vote for someone else.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,724
    Scott_xP said:

    It is worth saying that many Tory MPs tonight are saying they do not believe Boris Johnson will run. They say that if the threshold for nominations is very high, it is unlikely the former PM will risk it. There is no chance of him wanting to risk being defeated.
    https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1583129150012813312

    Please make it very high then.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,749

    I don't really understand the calls for an immediate election (well, I do, but they are nonsensical): even if Tory turkeys wanted to vote for Xmas, how could the electorate be presented with a choice? One of the two main (or perhaps 'formerly main') parties is in absolutely no position to put together a manifesto programme.

    Jesus Christ. Isn't the completely dysfunctional nature of the Tory party enough reason for keeping it well away from power? Do you not appreciate how close these clueless nutters brought us to catastrophe just a few weeks ago?

    God save us from Tory stupidity!
  • DearPBDearPB Posts: 439
    Driver said:

    Johnson shouldn't be allowed to stand:

    From the Conservative Party Constitution Schedule 2 page 18.
    https://public.conservatives.com/organisation-department/202101/Conservative Party Constitution as amended January 2021.pdf

    "RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
    1 The Leader shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members.
    2 A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent Leadership election."


    Definition of 'consequent':
    adjective
    1. following as a result or effect.

    This leadership election follows as a clear effect of Johnson's resignation.

    You're welcome.

    Nice try.
    Rules out Cameron, Major, Hague, Howard, May and IDS too - unless you can identify where the chain of history breaks!
  • RunDeepRunDeep Posts: 77

    DavidL said:

    What I want is Rishi as PM, Hunt Chancellor, Mordaunt HS, Gove levelling up Secy and all round coordinator, Wallace as Defence, the Saj back at health, Badenoch possibly Chief Secretary to Treasury etc. A government that makes the most use of the pool of talent available such as it is and with enough experience not to fall over its own feet on a daily basis.

    Mordaunt Foreign Sec?
    The Mordaunt who achieved nothing as Trade Minister, who lied during the referendum campaign over Turkey and who, even today, is pushing the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill which will get rid of 2,400 laws in sectors as diverse as employment, consumer law, transport law, environmental law, pension rights etc, with no idea of what will replace them.

    Haven't we had our fill of one vacuous over-ambitious, over-promoted nobody with no achievements to her name that we have to have another one?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,534
    edited October 2022

    Johnson shouldn't be allowed to stand:

    From the Conservative Party Constitution Schedule 2 page 18.
    https://public.conservatives.com/organisation-department/202101/Conservative Party Constitution as amended January 2021.pdf

    "RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
    1 The Leader shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members.
    2 A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent Leadership election."


    Definition of 'consequent':
    adjective
    1. following as a result or effect.

    This leadership election follows as a clear effect of Johnson's resignation.

    You're welcome.

    Much as i would like to agree with you I think this interpretation is wrong. If the idea was they could not stand in future elections I would have thought they would have used the word 'subsequent'. Consequent seems to me to refer only to the immediate election after resignation.

    But for the sake of the country I hope you are right in your interpretation.
  • Jonathan said:

    I don't really understand the calls for an immediate election (well, I do, but they are nonsensical): even if Tory turkeys wanted to vote for Xmas, how could the electorate be presented with a choice? One of the two main (or perhaps 'formerly main') parties is in absolutely no position to put together a manifesto programme.

    Elections are not there for the convenience of the Tory party. We need a government and a decent opposition. What the Tories do is perhaps irrelevant, but definitely secondary. Vote for someone else.
    Yes, but you do need to offer the electorate a choice. Otherwise how can there be a decent opposition?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    Someone tell Mordaunt and Sunak to flip a coin on who gets to be PM already (an acqaintance was desperately asking when we will have a good female PM, which felt harsh) - together they had 155 1st backers last time, and 242 by the final knockout round.

    Yes, some of those will go Boris, but it would be enough.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664

    I don't really understand the calls for an immediate election (well, I do, but they are nonsensical): even if Tory turkeys wanted to vote for Xmas, how could the electorate be presented with a choice? One of the two main (or perhaps 'formerly main') parties is in absolutely no position to put together a manifesto programme.

    Makes the choice easier surely?

    What if the Tories are still in this mess in January 2025, do we have to give them a bit more time to sort themselves out?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,160
    Nigelb said:
    Is Germany using TV presenters from the 1970s as a way of saving money?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,159

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    Might not be enough, but necessary.

    Good source reckons 1922 going to impose a nominations threshold of *100 MPs*

    That will narrow the field very, very quickly


    https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1583123851709333504?cxt=HHwWgICqiaywsfgrAAAA

    With agreement that who ends up 2nd drops out. No need to trouble the venerable members. That's one way.
    How you gonna get Boris to agree to drop out????
    Shoot him if necessary.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Is Germany using TV presenters from the 1970s as a way of saving money?
    What a silly, ageist post.

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,841

    DavidL said:

    What I want is Rishi as PM, Hunt Chancellor, Mordaunt HS, Gove levelling up Secy and all round coordinator, Wallace as Defence, the Saj back at health, Badenoch possibly Chief Secretary to Treasury etc. A government that makes the most use of the pool of talent available such as it is and with enough experience not to fall over its own feet on a daily basis.

    And Hague or similar as FS.
    Tugendhat?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,664

    Jonathan said:

    I don't really understand the calls for an immediate election (well, I do, but they are nonsensical): even if Tory turkeys wanted to vote for Xmas, how could the electorate be presented with a choice? One of the two main (or perhaps 'formerly main') parties is in absolutely no position to put together a manifesto programme.

    Elections are not there for the convenience of the Tory party. We need a government and a decent opposition. What the Tories do is perhaps irrelevant, but definitely secondary. Vote for someone else.
    Yes, but you do need to offer the electorate a choice. Otherwise how can there be a decent opposition?
    Vote LibDem they would do a better job in opposition. Davey is closer to the coalition, which you liked, than the current Tory party. There is lots to choose from. The Tories have no privilege here.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    RunDeep said:

    DavidL said:

    What I want is Rishi as PM, Hunt Chancellor, Mordaunt HS, Gove levelling up Secy and all round coordinator, Wallace as Defence, the Saj back at health, Badenoch possibly Chief Secretary to Treasury etc. A government that makes the most use of the pool of talent available such as it is and with enough experience not to fall over its own feet on a daily basis.

    Mordaunt Foreign Sec?
    The Mordaunt who achieved nothing as Trade Minister, who lied during the referendum campaign over Turkey and who, even today, is pushing the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill which will get rid of 2,400 laws in sectors as diverse as employment, consumer law, transport law, environmental law, pension rights etc, with no idea of what will replace them.

    Haven't we had our fill of one vacuous over-ambitious, over-promoted nobody with no achievements to her name that we have to have another one?
    Well, she has held Cabinet Office before at least, but at this rate all of them will for a brief period.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,784

    Krishnan Guru-Murthy suspended for a week.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63331322

    We desperately need professionalism back in both journalism and politics (well, perhaps we need to get professionalism in journalism; I'm unsure it was ever there in the first place... ;) )

    Seems a bit unfair to punish a journalist for telling the truth. Isn't that their job?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    Johnson shouldn't be allowed to stand:

    From the Conservative Party Constitution Schedule 2 page 18.
    https://public.conservatives.com/organisation-department/202101/Conservative Party Constitution as amended January 2021.pdf

    "RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
    1 The Leader shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members.
    2 A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent Leadership election."


    Definition of 'consequent':
    adjective
    1. following as a result or effect.

    This leadership election follows as a clear effect of Johnson's resignation.

    You're welcome.

    Much as i would like to agree with you I think this interpretation is wrong. If the idea was they could not stand in future elections I would have thought they would have used the word 'subsequent'. Consequent seems to me to refer only to the immediate election after resignation.

    But for the sake of the country I hope you are right in your interpretation.
    No chance, I'm afraid - IIRC this was discussed at the last leadership election.

    Boris resigns, consequently he can't stand in the next leadership election (singular).
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298

    DavidL said:

    What I want is Rishi as PM, Hunt Chancellor, Mordaunt HS, Gove levelling up Secy and all round coordinator, Wallace as Defence, the Saj back at health, Badenoch possibly Chief Secretary to Treasury etc. A government that makes the most use of the pool of talent available such as it is and with enough experience not to fall over its own feet on a daily basis.

    And Hague or similar as FS.
    Tugendhat?
    Sure.
    I don’t have any instinctive repulsion to any of @DavidL’s choice, with only slight reservations about Mordaunt’s abiliy to run the Home Office.

    Sadly, if it doesn’t repulse me then likely the Tories won’t go for it.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    A Labour source told HuffPost UK: "The Tories all droning on about how they need a sensible, serious person to manage the party and deliver stability, then that honking pudding turns up with his travelling circus. Delicious."

    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/could-boris-johnson-become-prime-minister-again_uk_635167ade4b051268c523a76
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Is Germany using TV presenters from the 1970s as a way of saving money?
    What a silly, ageist post.

    Ageist? They don't even look that old. I assumed it was a commentary on attire.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,784
    Johnson really is the unflushable turd of British politics.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664
    edited October 2022

    Johnson shouldn't be allowed to stand:

    From the Conservative Party Constitution Schedule 2 page 18.
    https://public.conservatives.com/organisation-department/202101/Conservative Party Constitution as amended January 2021.pdf

    "RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
    1 The Leader shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members.
    2 A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent Leadership election."


    Definition of 'consequent':
    adjective
    1. following as a result or effect.

    This leadership election follows as a clear effect of Johnson's resignation.

    You're welcome.

    Much as i would like to agree with you I think this interpretation is wrong. If the idea was they could not stand in future elections I would have thought they would have used the word 'subsequent'. Consequent seems to me to refer only to the immediate election after resignation.

    But fpor the sake of the country I hope you are right in your interpretation.
    I have no idea how many Johnson supporters there are on the 1922 committee but if a majority want to block him they are free to interpret the word 'consequently' that way.

    Schedule 2 para 3.
    "Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board."
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,863
    Johnson is just cornering the nutter vote
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275
    Fxcking morons !
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298

    Johnson really is the unflushable turd of British politics.

    Give him ten years and he will be exchanging birthday cards with his “bessie mate” V Putin.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,406
    If they make it 100 then Boris is next PM.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    A list of prize steamers.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    The left wing press exists and are not impotent, but they generally lack the reach, the puissance, and the money of the right wing press.

    They are also, perhaps structurally so, less power-focused and more interested in insular issues.

    "Left wing" and "right wing" press as terms are meaningless.

    It is the press that people choose to consume. Nothing preventing them buying Socialist Worker or the BNP Daily if they so wish.
    You are very naive.
    Oh god another one who is sure they are not affected by press bias but thinks that everyone else is.

    Smartest guy in the room, eh?
    Press bias exists.
    Everyone is affected by it.
    The best one can is try to eliminate inappropriate funding (foreign, criminal) of news, and fund avowedly independent options.

    It is you who seem to think that you are unaffected by press bias, I’m afraid, since you claim in your first sentence that it doesn’t exist or is “meaningless”
    I said meaningless.

    You have it round the wrong way. It is not bias it is catering to their audience. If you are of a left wing disposition you probably won't buy the Daily Mail.

    Likewise, if you are the Daily Mail and find that there is a ready market for right wing editorials then you will continue to produce right wing editorials.

    It is not bias.

    The Socialist Worker can be bought by anyone but its circulation is tiny. The Daily Mail is read by millions, as is The Mirror. Which suggests that each caters to its own market.
    You are assuming that people’s preferences are exogenous and not themselves shaped by the news discourse.

    The news “market” doesn’t work like toothpaste or shampoo.

    As I said, you are very naive.
    Your first statement is nonsensical.

    The news discourse is an exogenous event if you want to use the word in that sense.

    Peoples' preferences are shaped by everything - life experiences, family, work, commuting, getting mugged, liking fluffy animals, being left-handed.

    Generally, people look for confirmations of their opinions. Hence they will gravitate towards a media outlet that reflects their own world view.

    The media is biased, you say. Are you subject to that bias or are you able to read a news article critically (I believe one is supposed to be able to do that from age 16 years old).
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,159

    Johnson shouldn't be allowed to stand:

    From the Conservative Party Constitution Schedule 2 page 18.
    https://public.conservatives.com/organisation-department/202101/Conservative Party Constitution as amended January 2021.pdf

    "RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
    1 The Leader shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members.
    2 A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent Leadership election."


    Definition of 'consequent':
    adjective
    1. following as a result or effect.

    This leadership election follows as a clear effect of Johnson's resignation.

    You're welcome.

    Much as i would like to agree with you I think this interpretation is wrong. If the idea was they could not stand in future elections I would have thought they would have used the word 'subsequent'. Consequent seems to me to refer only to the immediate election after resignation.

    But for the sake of the country I hope you are right in your interpretation.
    Sadly agree. The wording doesn't work to ban him. The tell is the use of THE consequent election.

    But worry not - he hasn't a ghost.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,191
    Never felt so humiliated....

    David Mellor :blush:
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,557
    edited October 2022
    Boris? Leader again? Okay.

    Well, if Micky Fab thinks it's a good idea, maybe it is.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,930
    Just catching up. Thank god.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,053
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Is Germany using TV presenters from the 1970s as a way of saving money?
    Maybe they don’t have a test card and so every so often each presenter has to go the full Hendrix to prove the colours are working?
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I don't really understand the calls for an immediate election (well, I do, but they are nonsensical): even if Tory turkeys wanted to vote for Xmas, how could the electorate be presented with a choice? One of the two main (or perhaps 'formerly main') parties is in absolutely no position to put together a manifesto programme.

    Elections are not there for the convenience of the Tory party. We need a government and a decent opposition. What the Tories do is perhaps irrelevant, but definitely secondary. Vote for someone else.
    Yes, but you do need to offer the electorate a choice. Otherwise how can there be a decent opposition?
    Vote LibDem they would do a better job in opposition. Davey is closer to the coalition, which you liked, than the current Tory party. There is lots to choose from. The Tories have no privilege here.
    The Tories have no privilege, of course. I would say the same if Labour were in a (hopefully temporary) shambles.

    Now, as it happens, I don't think the Conservative Party is going to be able to recover from this mess to the point where they are electable again, but I do think that having an election at the height of the shambles would be inappropriate.

    Of course it's academic anyway, because there is zero chance of them calling an election anytime soon.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,568
    Some of those names were always going to be ahead of the B of the Bang.

    Wake me when he has 60.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073

    Johnson shouldn't be allowed to stand:

    From the Conservative Party Constitution Schedule 2 page 18.
    https://public.conservatives.com/organisation-department/202101/Conservative Party Constitution as amended January 2021.pdf

    "RULES FOR THE ELECTION OF THE LEADER
    1 The Leader shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members.
    2 A Leader resigning from the Leadership of the Party is not eligible for re-nomination in the consequent Leadership election."


    Definition of 'consequent':
    adjective
    1. following as a result or effect.

    This leadership election follows as a clear effect of Johnson's resignation.

    You're welcome.

    Much as i would like to agree with you I think this interpretation is wrong. If the idea was they could not stand in future elections I would have thought they would have used the word 'subsequent'. Consequent seems to me to refer only to the immediate election after resignation.

    But fpor the sake of the country I hope you are right in your interpretation.
    I have no idea how many Johnson supporters there are on the 1922 committee but if a majority want to block him they are free to interpret the word 'consequently' that way.

    Schedule 2 para 3.
    "Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board."
    It's not for them to interpret the party constitution, though.

    Would be likely counterproductive to try such shenanigans.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298

    Johnson really is the unflushable turd of British politics.

    Give him ten years and he will be exchanging birthday cards with his “bessie mate” V Putin.
    People mock the concept of Boris Derangement Syndrome, but what other explanation can there be for a comment like that?
    Was a reference to Boris’s archetype Berlusconi.

    Sorry you didn’t get it.

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    Scott_xP said:

    A Labour source told HuffPost UK: "The Tories all droning on about how they need a sensible, serious person to manage the party and deliver stability, then that honking pudding turns up with his travelling circus. Delicious."

    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/could-boris-johnson-become-prime-minister-again_uk_635167ade4b051268c523a76

    Alistair Campbell doesnt get any less obvious with age
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,664

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    I don't really understand the calls for an immediate election (well, I do, but they are nonsensical): even if Tory turkeys wanted to vote for Xmas, how could the electorate be presented with a choice? One of the two main (or perhaps 'formerly main') parties is in absolutely no position to put together a manifesto programme.

    Elections are not there for the convenience of the Tory party. We need a government and a decent opposition. What the Tories do is perhaps irrelevant, but definitely secondary. Vote for someone else.
    Yes, but you do need to offer the electorate a choice. Otherwise how can there be a decent opposition?
    Vote LibDem they would do a better job in opposition. Davey is closer to the coalition, which you liked, than the current Tory party. There is lots to choose from. The Tories have no privilege here.
    The Tories have no privilege, of course. I would say the same if Labour were in a (hopefully temporary) shambles.

    Now, as it happens, I don't think the Conservative Party is going to be able to recover from this mess to the point where they are electable again, but I do think that having an election at the height of the shambles would be inappropriate.

    Of course it's academic anyway, because there is zero chance of them calling an election anytime soon.
    My logic is simpler. Things are very bad and the country would be better off with Starmer in number 10 now. So there should be an election asap.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,863
    edited October 2022
    Nom threshold will be 100 - so three candidates max

    Concludes Fri 28 Nov
    Noms close 2pm Monday
    MPs narrow down to two candidates - all MP stages on the Monday (?)
    Then member stages - quick binding online vote if there are two candidates
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,664
    This Thread has resigned!
  • This thread hasn't reached the threshold for nominations.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,957
    DearPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    The left wing press exists and are not impotent, but they generally lack the reach, the puissance, and the money of the right wing press.

    They are also, perhaps structurally so, less power-focused and more interested in insular issues.

    "Left wing" and "right wing" press as terms are meaningless.

    It is the press that people choose to consume. Nothing preventing them buying Socialist Worker or the BNP Daily if they so wish.
    You are very naive.
    Oh god another one who is sure they are not affected by press bias but thinks that everyone else is.

    Smartest guy in the room, eh?
    Press bias exists.
    Everyone is affected by it.
    The best one can is try to eliminate inappropriate funding (foreign, criminal) of news, and fund avowedly independent options.

    It is you who seem to think that you are unaffected by press bias, I’m afraid, since you claim in your first sentence that it doesn’t exist or is “meaningless”
    I said meaningless.

    You have it round the wrong way. It is not bias it is catering to their audience. If you are of a left wing disposition you probably won't buy the Daily Mail.

    Likewise, if you are the Daily Mail and find that there is a ready market for right wing editorials then you will continue to produce right wing editorials.

    It is not bias.

    The Socialist Worker can be bought by anyone but its circulation is tiny. The Daily Mail is read by millions, as is The Mirror. Which suggests that each caters to its own market.
    There are remarkable statistics on the voting habits of newspaper readers - never as homogenous as you expect. As someone who for twenty years read the Guardian as a Tory activist I can attest that it's possible to read a newspaper for other reasons than its editorial line.
    Absolutely. I used to enjoy reading the Guardian. I loved a good Polly article and have been known to comment on them previously.

    But there is also a substantial constituency which does consume the media which reflects and reinforces their own view. Indeed I stopped reading the Graun because it had become more confirmatory. An article saying Tories are child eaters and 500 comments saying yes Tories are child eaters.

    On CiF below the line, for example, I would say that left:right is 20:1 only the odd contrarian post.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,073
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Is Germany using TV presenters from the 1970s as a way of saving money?
    And the backdrop is positively Victorian.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,841
    edited October 2022
    Is it fair to say that Johnson is being backed by people who would have no chance of promotion under the others?

    As I've said before there is a chance we get a decent government out of this. This coming from someone who has never voted Tory in my life. No guarantees though. Will the diehards accept it?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,159
    Talk about the Dirty Dozen.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,053

    Johnson really is the unflushable turd of British politics.

    Give him ten years and he will be exchanging birthday cards with his “bessie mate” V Putin.
    People mock the concept of Boris Derangement Syndrome, but what other explanation can there be for a comment like that?
    I was thinking the same. People just assume Boris is exactly like whichever of Trump or Berlusconi they are in the mood for comparing him to today. That’s a large part of why they keep underestimating him.

    As it happens I reckon he comes back in opposition with a smaller party in his image, and then grows it into power.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    IanB2 said:

    Nom threshold will be 100 - so three candidates max

    Concludes Fri 28 Nov
    Noms close 2pm Monday
    MPs narrow down to two candidates
    Then member stages - quick binding online vote if there are two candidates

    What? I thought this was supposed to be over in a week.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    biggles said:

    Johnson really is the unflushable turd of British politics.

    Give him ten years and he will be exchanging birthday cards with his “bessie mate” V Putin.
    People mock the concept of Boris Derangement Syndrome, but what other explanation can there be for a comment like that?
    I was thinking the same. People just assume Boris is exactly like whichever of Trump or Berlusconi they are in the mood for comparing him to today. That’s a large part of why they keep underestimating him.

    As it happens I reckon he comes back in opposition with a smaller party in his image, and then grows it into power.
    So…like Berlusconi then?
    FFS.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,749
    I really think some of these people should be in institutional care, not (supposedly) running the country.

    If we had an election, the projections say the Tories would be down to well down into double figures of MPs.

    It is a frightening thought that they are still in a position (potentially) to inflict yet another iteration of lunatic incompetence on real people trying to lead their lives.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    DavidL said:

    What I want is Rishi as PM, Hunt Chancellor, Mordaunt HS, Gove levelling up Secy and all round coordinator, Wallace as Defence, the Saj back at health, Badenoch possibly Chief Secretary to Treasury etc. A government that makes the most use of the pool of talent available such as it is and with enough experience not to fall over its own feet on a daily basis.

    I would take that. Hunt has started on a certain course, they may as well just keep the ship afloat and make some progress going along it. Because the other ideas the tories came up with in the last leadership campaign failed, and they don't have any other ideas. So why not just do something that vaguely works? They don't have to try that hard to win the next election because Labour are going to struggle to come up with anything else. Starmers thing is just to present an image of stability against chaos. But what if the tories are stable? Starmer then just looks like a nonentity with no ideas, and many of the MP's in the party are out of touch activist dating back to the Corbyn era. The tories don't need to do that much to win another majority.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    - Brady confirms that candidates need support of at least 100 MPs to stand for Tory leader

    - Berry confirms there will be online vote of the Conservative membership that wraps up end of next week https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1583134482793893889/photo/1
  • eekeek Posts: 28,370

    IanB2 said:

    Nom threshold will be 100 - so three candidates max

    Concludes Fri 28 Nov
    Noms close 2pm Monday
    MPs narrow down to two candidates
    Then member stages - quick binding online vote if there are two candidates

    What? I thought this was supposed to be over in a week.
    Friday 28 Oct

    The last Friday in November is the 25th
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,840
    edited October 2022
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Is Germany using TV presenters from the 1970s as a way of saving money?
    And the backdrop is positively Victorian.
    Indeed it is. It's a pic to represent UK governance by the Tory Party.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,173
    darkage said:

    DavidL said:

    What I want is Rishi as PM, Hunt Chancellor, Mordaunt HS, Gove levelling up Secy and all round coordinator, Wallace as Defence, the Saj back at health, Badenoch possibly Chief Secretary to Treasury etc. A government that makes the most use of the pool of talent available such as it is and with enough experience not to fall over its own feet on a daily basis.

    I would take that. Hunt has started on a certain course, they may as well just keep the ship afloat and make some progress going along it. Because the other ideas the tories came up with in the last leadership campaign failed, and they don't have any other ideas. So why not just do something that vaguely works? They don't have to try that hard to win the next election because Labour are going to struggle to come up with anything else. Starmers thing is just to present an image of stability against chaos. But what if the tories are stable? Starmer then just looks like a nonentity with no ideas, and many of the MP's in the party are out of touch activist dating back to the Corbyn era. The tories don't need to do that much to win another majority.
    Yep. Shapps as HS is loopy.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,053

    biggles said:

    Johnson really is the unflushable turd of British politics.

    Give him ten years and he will be exchanging birthday cards with his “bessie mate” V Putin.
    People mock the concept of Boris Derangement Syndrome, but what other explanation can there be for a comment like that?
    I was thinking the same. People just assume Boris is exactly like whichever of Trump or Berlusconi they are in the mood for comparing him to today. That’s a large part of why they keep underestimating him.

    As it happens I reckon he comes back in opposition with a smaller party in his image, and then grows it into power.
    So…like Berlusconi then?
    FFS.
    In every way except for his politics, his support for Russia, and his criminality. So nothing alike.

    You might hate Boris, but suggesting he’s criminal or treacherous…..?
  • I have to say I am starting to get excited now.

    Only 5 more PMs to Christmas!
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298
    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Johnson really is the unflushable turd of British politics.

    Give him ten years and he will be exchanging birthday cards with his “bessie mate” V Putin.
    People mock the concept of Boris Derangement Syndrome, but what other explanation can there be for a comment like that?
    I was thinking the same. People just assume Boris is exactly like whichever of Trump or Berlusconi they are in the mood for comparing him to today. That’s a large part of why they keep underestimating him.

    As it happens I reckon he comes back in opposition with a smaller party in his image, and then grows it into power.
    So…like Berlusconi then?
    FFS.
    In every way except for his politics, his support for Russia, and his criminality. So nothing alike.

    You might hate Boris, but suggesting he’s criminal or treacherous…..?
    He’s criminal on some definitions at least.
    Treacherous? I really couldn’t say with 100% certainty.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,813
    Nominations close on Monday? Oh god that gives way too much time for my liking for BoZo to meet the threshold.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,661

    I have to say I am starting to get excited now.

    Only 5 more PMs to Christmas!

    In the future everyone will be PM for 15 minutes.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,813
    So final member ballot last time was:

    1. Rish! - 137
    2. PM4PM - 105
    3. Trussterf*ck - 113

    So if (big if) the MP votes stay around the same both will get on the ballot.

    Problem I can see is:

    1. Whether PM bleeds some support to BoZo
    2. Whether BoZo hoovers up the Truss votes and therefore gets on the ballot.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914

    Let’s hope so:

    Jacob Rees-Mogg drove the toppling of Theresa May.
    Now he's been the unwitting trigger for the demise of both Johnson and Truss.
    3 strikes and he's out?


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1583083400508104705

    I don't see how they can blame him for Johnson or Truss. Obviously it showed their bad judgement appointing such a fool but compared to everything else that was insignificant
  • biggles said:

    Johnson really is the unflushable turd of British politics.

    Give him ten years and he will be exchanging birthday cards with his “bessie mate” V Putin.
    People mock the concept of Boris Derangement Syndrome, but what other explanation can there be for a comment like that?
    I was thinking the same. People just assume Boris is exactly like whichever of Trump or Berlusconi they are in the mood for comparing him to today. That’s a large part of why they keep underestimating him.

    As it happens I reckon he comes back in opposition with a smaller party in his image, and then grows it into power.
    Boris Johnson is not Trump or Berlusconi; in many ways he is not as bad, in other ways considerably worse. The only people who might have Boris Derangement Syndrome are those who are so terminally braindead that they think it is appropriate to bring back a man to the highest office in the land who has been seen to behave in a dishonest and incompetent manner and is currently still under investigation for various misdemeanours that have undermined confidence in our democratic system.

    Those who have Boris Derangement Syndrome continue to bash one out at his image, simply because he won a big majority.

    Against. Jeremy. Corbyn.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    Roger said:

    Let’s hope so:

    Jacob Rees-Mogg drove the toppling of Theresa May.
    Now he's been the unwitting trigger for the demise of both Johnson and Truss.
    3 strikes and he's out?


    https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1583083400508104705

    I don't see how they can blame him for Johnson or Truss. Obviously it showed their bad judgement appointing such a fool but compared to everything else that was insignificant
    Thats true. As I never tire of noting, Boris took 2 years to make JRM a proper Cabinet Member, and even then didnt trust him with a department. He was a patsy but not central to things.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    Foxy said:

    I have to say I am starting to get excited now.

    Only 5 more PMs to Christmas!

    In the future everyone will be PM for 15 minutes.
    I apologise in advance for my disastrous tenure.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    darkage said:

    DavidL said:

    What I want is Rishi as PM, Hunt Chancellor, Mordaunt HS, Gove levelling up Secy and all round coordinator, Wallace as Defence, the Saj back at health, Badenoch possibly Chief Secretary to Treasury etc. A government that makes the most use of the pool of talent available such as it is and with enough experience not to fall over its own feet on a daily basis.

    I would take that. Hunt has started on a certain course, they may as well just keep the ship afloat and make some progress going along it. Because the other ideas the tories came up with in the last leadership campaign failed, and they don't have any other ideas. So why not just do something that vaguely works? They don't have to try that hard to win the next election because Labour are going to struggle to come up with anything else. Starmers thing is just to present an image of stability against chaos. But what if the tories are stable? Starmer then just looks like a nonentity with no ideas, and many of the MP's in the party are out of touch activist dating back to the Corbyn era. The tories don't need to do that much to win another majority.
    They wouldn't have to try that hard...were it not for demolishing their reputation. They wont get credit now even if they do very well.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,103
    biggles said:

    Johnson really is the unflushable turd of British politics.

    Give him ten years and he will be exchanging birthday cards with his “bessie mate” V Putin.
    People mock the concept of Boris Derangement Syndrome, but what other explanation can there be for a comment like that?
    I was thinking the same. People just assume Boris is exactly like whichever of Trump or Berlusconi they are in the mood for comparing him to today. That’s a large part of why they keep underestimating him.

    As it happens I reckon he comes back in opposition with a smaller party in his image, and then grows it into power.
    I agree with first part, people overdo the comparisons. He's much better than them.

    But his attitude and character are at least similar
This discussion has been closed.