The Scottish Nationalists like to make a lot of the voting intention differences between England and Scotland to argue that Scotland is politically distinct from England, that therefore there isn't a unified political demos, and so Scotland needs to be independent.
The issue with the age-divide in voting intention is that this divide is so large, that those aged 65+ are clearly inhabiting a different political world to the rest of the country. Even after all that has happened over the last year, they would still vote for a Tory government over a Labour one. It suggests that Britain (or England & Wales if you prefer), is deeply divided among itself, arguably we no longer have a unified political demos, and this internal division will make tackling our problems much more difficult. Most likely the country is not even united over what the problems are.
A certain amount of division and dissent is healthy, and too much consensus is a bad thing, but there has to be some common ground to make progress. Until this divide is reduced I think it is going to act as a barrier to reform, whether from the left or the right.
Why? Under 25s even voted Labour in 1987, 2010 and 2019 too.
The fact over 65s almost always vote Conservative, only time they didn't in recent decades was 1997 and under 25s almost always vote Labour, last time they didn't was 1983, just shows they are the Conservative and Labour base respectively.
It does not mean the country is irreparably divided as it is still 30 to 65 year olds who are the swing voters who decide elections, not the oldest or youngest voters.
You are looking at the divide in categorical terms only, not at the magnitude of the difference.
The situation of the young supporting Labour by 40-35 and the old supporting the Tories by 40-35, is very different to the young supporting Labour by 70-5 and the old supporting the Tories by 70-5, even though the two situations as the same by the way you look at them. The magnitude of the difference is more significant than the direction.
Rishi standing on his economic record. Oh dear. Truss pressed the button, but Rishi laid most of the charges.
Not sure I've got you there. Truss came out with a whole new package, effectively a giveaway, including a far more generous energy plan than Sunak offered. I don't think the markets had a sudden realisation that Sunak had left a load of unexploded mines.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 20m Given the decisions that have to be taken on spending, there is simply no way the Government continues to function if the Tory party elects a Prime Minister who does not enjoy overwhelming support from Tory MPs. I suspect it would mean an election in weeks, if not days.
i always assumed that Rishi really was 'ambushed by cake' whereas Johnson was the central cause and inspiration of the law-breaking culture at No 10. That along with the corruption, the lying and the shielding of sexual offenders don't incline me to be generous to Johnson.
Talking to local Cons I find -
They want Johnson back Many will not vote for a Con Party led by Rishi They don't understand that any Johnson come-back would be mired in allegations from Day One and probably wouldn't last too long. Several thought Truss was treated very unfairly and was stabbed in the back by Rishi.
Purely anecdotal but the Cons had better get on their knees and pray that Johnson doesn't get to 100. If he does the clock may well be ticking on the whole party
WTF is this continual “stabbed in the back” nonsense ?
1918 Germany anyone?
Sure, it’s distasteful. But in this case it’s utter mince. Sunak warned of the consequences of Truss’s policies before she won. Both he and his supporters were almost entirely excluded from her administration, which then experienced the predicted disaster. Whether he owed any loyalty to her is questionable; even if he did, to suggest any kind if ‘betrayal’ plums the depths of absurdity.
These people are just mad.
That the stabbing was justified, due to Sunak and his supporters being 'excluded from the administration' is debatable. Professing confusion that anyone is alleging stabbing at all is amnesia.
Steve Baker Jesse Norman Geoffrey Cox Theresa Villiers
Since yesterday - two Truss and two Sunak - to Sunak's tally helps him.
My current forecast is:
Sunak 160 (+5) Boris 104 (-6) Mordaunt 30 (n/c)
Where are the other 60-ish going? Can you make your forecast of the full 370?
The forecast uses votes from the last 2 last time (Sunak/Truss).
59 MPs did not express a public view last time, so the model assumes similar this time.
The extrapolation would be@
Sunak 194 Boris 126 Mordaunt 36
But that would be rather unsound, for various reasons. For one, that is 357, which I assume excludes Brady and some MPs without the Whip. But it appears to be Guido's total figure, which I assume is accurate.
It looks as though Boris Johnson intends to go for this. The only hope left for this once great party, and in the short term for the country as well, is that he fails to make it to 100.
If he does cross the threshold then I'm afraid that all hell is about to break loose.
Not necessarily. Still a scenario where he gets the 100 but the members back Rishi IMHO.
A scenario.
But the members are an ornery bunch who have rejected Rishi for Liz Truss (Liz Truss!!!! Remember her?) and will likely reject him again for Boris.
Rishi’s “toxicity” with the membership is oft overplayed.
Do you have evidence to back that? Not an antagonistic question, I'm genuinely interested to know on what solid factual grounds you can state it?
He outperformed his polling vs Truss.
Might not that have more to do with at least some members realising that Truss was going to be awful?
If it does come down to Sunak vs Johnson then even in the short time available I suspect Rishi's alleged toxicity will be well and truly stoked by Boris' supporters. They are convinced that it is he who stabbed their king.
Meanwhile on Russia's state-funded RT, director of broadcasting Anton Krasovsky suggests drowning or burning Ukrainian children, makes hideous comments about the rapes by Russian soldiers in Ukraine, says Ukraine should not exist and Ukrainians who resist Russia should be shot. https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1584054018145685504
i always assumed that Rishi really was 'ambushed by cake' whereas Johnson was the central cause and inspiration of the law-breaking culture at No 10. That along with the corruption, the lying and the shielding of sexual offenders don't incline me to be generous to Johnson.
Talking to local Cons I find -
They want Johnson back Many will not vote for a Con Party led by Rishi They don't understand that any Johnson come-back would be mired in allegations from Day One and probably wouldn't last too long. Several thought Truss was treated very unfairly and was stabbed in the back by Rishi.
Purely anecdotal but the Cons had better get on their knees and pray that Johnson doesn't get to 100. If he does the clock may well be ticking on the whole party
WTF is this continual “stabbed in the back” nonsense ?
1918 Germany anyone?
Sure, it’s distasteful. But in this case it’s utter mince. Sunak warned of the consequences of Truss’s policies before she won. Both he and his supporters were almost entirely excluded from her administration, which then experienced the predicted disaster. Whether he owed any loyalty to her is questionable; even if he did, to suggest any kind if ‘betrayal’ plums the depths of absurdity.
These people are just mad.
That the stabbing was justified, due to Sunak and his supporters being 'excluded from the administration' is debatable. Professing confusion that anyone is alleging stabbing at all is amnesia.
Meanwhile on Russia's state-funded RT, director of broadcasting Anton Krasovsky suggests drowning or burning Ukrainian children, makes hideous comments about the rapes by Russian soldiers in Ukraine, says Ukraine should not exist and Ukrainians who resist Russia should be shot. https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1584054018145685504
Seems like a nice guy then (!)
State media openly calling for genocidal policies puts the “just a border dispute” nonsense into context.
It looks as though Boris Johnson intends to go for this. The only hope left for this once great party, and in the short term for the country as well, is that he fails to make it to 100.
If he does cross the threshold then I'm afraid that all hell is about to break loose.
Not necessarily. Still a scenario where he gets the 100 but the members back Rishi IMHO.
A scenario.
But the members are an ornery bunch who have rejected Rishi for Liz Truss (Liz Truss!!!! Remember her?) and will likely reject him again for Boris.
I am not so sure. He will have overwhelming backing from the MPs and there will be a desire to cause less chaos.
It will be a close run thing IMHO. Rishi’s “toxicity” with the membership is oft overplayed.
Many MPs think if it goes to the members, Boris is back as PM.
As the "stop the membership having a say candidate", Rishi is mopping up plenty of those who might otherwise have gone to Penny Mordaunt. But if it goes to the members, they will know why all those MPs rallied round him.
We’re heading toward an extinction level conservative event if Boris stands.
I just cannot comprehend how MPs in significant positions of power can re endorse Johnson. We head straight into more scandal from day one - and they actively welcome it?
The fear is palpable in the latest posts from Stuart Dickson.
There is definitely concern in the SNP, see the analysis of their conference speechs.
OTOH, any losses to Labour would be more than offset by gains from the Tories in Moray, Aberdeenshire and the borders. And I don't think the SNP are that bothered by actually losing seats - it's whether they get over that magic 50% in votes mark (SNP + Greens). They can then claim they have a rock solid case for Indyref2
On latest Scotland only Westminster polls SNP and Green combined are only on 45%.
Scottish Labour, Scottish Conservatives and Scottish LDs are on 51% combined
I would walk 20 miles to vote against Bozo at the next GE . What his supporters seem to ignore is that the ceiling for Sunak is higher because he’s not loathed like Johnson .
Johnson had the perfect set up in 2019, Corbyn and Brexit . Without that he’s not winning a GE .
According to Guido Sunak 140 (135named) Johnson 76 (60 named) Mordaunt 28 (25 named)
Target is 101 (includes the candidate so with only 113 (though 21 on the spreadsheet are anonymous) left looking that Mordaunt will not get to 100 if Boris actually stands.
i always assumed that Rishi really was 'ambushed by cake' whereas Johnson was the central cause and inspiration of the law-breaking culture at No 10. That along with the corruption, the lying and the shielding of sexual offenders don't incline me to be generous to Johnson.
Talking to local Cons I find -
They want Johnson back Many will not vote for a Con Party led by Rishi They don't understand that any Johnson come-back would be mired in allegations from Day One and probably wouldn't last too long. Several thought Truss was treated very unfairly and was stabbed in the back by Rishi.
Purely anecdotal but the Cons had better get on their knees and pray that Johnson doesn't get to 100. If he does the clock may well be ticking on the whole party
WTF is this continual “stabbed in the back” nonsense ?
1918 Germany anyone?
Sure, it’s distasteful. But in this case it’s utter mince. Sunak warned of the consequences of Truss’s policies before she won. Both he and his supporters were almost entirely excluded from her administration, which then experienced the predicted disaster. Whether he owed any loyalty to her is questionable; even if he did, to suggest any kind if ‘betrayal’ plums the depths of absurdity.
These people are just mad.
That the stabbing was justified, due to Sunak and his supporters being 'excluded from the administration' is debatable. Professing confusion that anyone is alleging stabbing at all is amnesia.
I see you’re one of the mad ones on this.
Great riposte.
Let me explain again for you, then. Helping boot out a disastrous PM who had run the government into the ground, in exactly the way you predicted beforehand, might be described metaphorically as wielding the knife. Calling it a “stab in the back” is both inaccurate and grotesque.
The longer version promising "integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level of government" amongst other things makes it a good initial pitch
Although I’d have put “deliver for our country” ahead of “unite our party” in his 3 part list.
The country an afterthought to the Tory Party? Whatever next?
We’re heading toward an extinction level conservative event if Boris stands.
I just cannot comprehend how MPs in significant positions of power can re endorse Johnson. We head straight into more scandal from day one - and they actively welcome it?
36% of the vote on that JL Partners poll with Boris is not an 'extinction level event' it is what Cameron got in 2010.
Truss was leading the Tories to less than 20% of the vote and an 'extinction level event' neither Boris nor Rishi would be, both get well over 30% on the JL poll
Steve Baker Jesse Norman Geoffrey Cox Theresa Villiers
Since yesterday - two Truss and two Sunak - to Sunak's tally helps him.
My current forecast is:
Sunak 160 (+5) Boris 104 (-6) Mordaunt 30 (n/c)
Where are the other 60-ish going? Can you make your forecast of the full 370?
The forecast uses votes from the last 2 last time (Sunak/Truss).
59 MPs did not express a public view last time, so the model assumes similar this time.
The extrapolation would be@
Sunak 194 Boris 126 Mordaunt 36
But that would be rather unsound, for various reasons. For one, that is 357, which I assume excludes Brady and some MPs without the Whip. But it appears to be Guido's total figure, which I assume is accurate.
There's no necessity for an MP to nominate anyone. The first vote is separate from the noms process.
I think there is another factor in Sunak's favour re: membership "vote". If Johnson makes the threshold and insists on a vote then the markets might react extremely unfavourably, immediately. Something to make members pause for thought before sending in their emails...
It looks as though Boris Johnson intends to go for this. The only hope left for this once great party, and in the short term for the country as well, is that he fails to make it to 100.
If he does cross the threshold then I'm afraid that all hell is about to break loose.
Not necessarily. Still a scenario where he gets the 100 but the members back Rishi IMHO.
A scenario.
But the members are an ornery bunch who have rejected Rishi for Liz Truss (Liz Truss!!!! Remember her?) and will likely reject him again for Boris.
I am not so sure. He will have overwhelming backing from the MPs and there will be a desire to cause less chaos.
It will be a close run thing IMHO. Rishi’s “toxicity” with the membership is oft overplayed.
Many MPs think if it goes to the members, Boris is back as PM.
As the "stop the membership having a say candidate", Rishi is mopping up plenty of those who might otherwise have gone to Penny Mordaunt. But if it goes to the members, they will know why all those MPs rallied round him.
And reject him. Again.
If Johnson wins this the conservative party will cease as a viable political construct leaving very many of us politically homeless
We’re heading toward an extinction level conservative event if Boris stands.
I just cannot comprehend how MPs in significant positions of power can re endorse Johnson. We head straight into more scandal from day one - and they actively welcome it?
Not too bad at the last knockings for Pakistan; Indian need 160 to win. Should be able to do it but it's still more than they might have expected to face.
It looks as though Boris Johnson intends to go for this. The only hope left for this once great party, and in the short term for the country as well, is that he fails to make it to 100.
If he does cross the threshold then I'm afraid that all hell is about to break loose.
Not necessarily. Still a scenario where he gets the 100 but the members back Rishi IMHO.
A scenario.
But the members are an ornery bunch who have rejected Rishi for Liz Truss (Liz Truss!!!! Remember her?) and will likely reject him again for Boris.
Rishi’s “toxicity” with the membership is oft overplayed.
Do you have evidence to back that? Not an antagonistic question, I'm genuinely interested to know on what solid factual grounds you can state it?
He outperformed his polling vs Truss.
Might not that have more to do with at least some members realising that Truss was going to be awful?
If it does come down to Sunak vs Johnson then even in the short time available I suspect Rishi's alleged toxicity will be well and truly stoked by Boris' supporters. They are convinced that it is he who stabbed their king.
In which case they are voting for a split in the Tory Party and likely an immediate GE. And the chaos of the investigations into Boris.
I am quite prepared to say they may do it. I don’t have a lot of faith in Tory members. But if they do they are essentially voting to destroy their party as a serious party of government. So it’s up to them. But I have a little bit more faith than the view that a Boris victory is inevitable.
Steve Baker Jesse Norman Geoffrey Cox Theresa Villiers
Since yesterday - two Truss and two Sunak - to Sunak's tally helps him.
My current forecast is:
Sunak 160 (+5) Boris 104 (-6) Mordaunt 30 (n/c)
Where are the other 60-ish going? Can you make your forecast of the full 370?
The forecast uses votes from the last 2 last time (Sunak/Truss).
59 MPs did not express a public view last time, so the model assumes similar this time.
The extrapolation would be@
Sunak 194 Boris 126 Mordaunt 36
But that would be rather unsound, for various reasons. For one, that is 357, which I assume excludes Brady and some MPs without the Whip. But it appears to be Guido's total figure, which I assume is accurate.
There's no necessity for an MP to nominate anyone. The first vote is separate from the noms process.
Sorry Ian, that's the point. I'm not forecasting the vote, I'm forecasting nominations. Heathener asked for what would effectively be a first vote projection (since turnout is ~100%). This is obviously fine, but it's really not what the model is doing.
See new Tweets Conversation Nadhim Zahawi @nadhimzahawi · 6m I’m backing Boris. He got the big calls right, whether it was ordering more vaccines ahead of more waves of covid, arming 🇺🇦 early against the advice of some, or stepping down for the sake of unity. But now, Britain needs him back. We need to unite to deliver on our manifesto 1/2 Nadhim Zahawi @nadhimzahawi When I was Chancellor, I saw a preview of what Boris 2.0 would look like. He was contrite & honest about his mistakes. He’d learned from those mistakes how he could run No10 & the country better. With a unified team behind him, he is the one to lead us to victory & prosperity 2/2
Conclusion: Zahawi is an idiot.
He has not exactly made a compelling case to be kept in the next Cabinet, has he?
For a while I thought he was smarter than this.
For a while.
Zahawi is a bit of a puzzle. Sometimes he seems very sensible, and he was excellent in the vaccine job, but sometimes he seems to be a Grade A twerp.
Today is one of the latter cases.
"This is not sustainable and it will only get worse: for you, for the Conservative Party and most importantly of all the country. You must do the right thing and go now" - Nadhim Zahawi, July 2022.
Steve Baker Jesse Norman Geoffrey Cox Theresa Villiers
Since yesterday - two Truss and two Sunak - to Sunak's tally helps him.
My current forecast is:
Sunak 160 (+5) Boris 104 (-6) Mordaunt 30 (n/c)
I keep asking this but I haven't seen a reply.
Guido is giving Boris a total of 75, but only 59 are nameable, because - he says - the others have positions that means they must remain "publicly neutral", though they have a vote.
Obviously in relation to the nominations the question is - if they have to remain "publicly neutral", can they nominate a candidate?
Because if they can't, then a naive extrapolation of current support to nominations will leave him well short of 100, whether on Guido's numbers or the BBC's.
Does anyone know the answer to this? Because without an answer, all the speculation is no more than hot air.
Penny Mordaunt having a car crash on @bbclaurak right now. Refusing to answer straightforward questions on what she stands for and won’t even repeat her call from 2 weeks ago that benefits should rise with inflation.
i always assumed that Rishi really was 'ambushed by cake' whereas Johnson was the central cause and inspiration of the law-breaking culture at No 10. That along with the corruption, the lying and the shielding of sexual offenders don't incline me to be generous to Johnson.
Talking to local Cons I find -
They want Johnson back Many will not vote for a Con Party led by Rishi They don't understand that any Johnson come-back would be mired in allegations from Day One and probably wouldn't last too long. Several thought Truss was treated very unfairly and was stabbed in the back by Rishi.
Purely anecdotal but the Cons had better get on their knees and pray that Johnson doesn't get to 100. If he does the clock may well be ticking on the whole party
WTF is this continual “stabbed in the back” nonsense ?
1918 Germany anyone?
Sure, it’s distasteful. But in this case it’s utter mince. Sunak warned of the consequences of Truss’s policies before she won. Both he and his supporters were almost entirely excluded from her administration, which then experienced the predicted disaster. Whether he owed any loyalty to her is questionable; even if he did, to suggest any kind if ‘betrayal’ plums the depths of absurdity.
These people are just mad.
That the stabbing was justified, due to Sunak and his supporters being 'excluded from the administration' is debatable. Professing confusion that anyone is alleging stabbing at all is amnesia.
I see you’re one of the mad ones on this.
Great riposte.
Let me explain again for you, then. Helping boot out a disastrous PM who had run the government into the ground, in exactly the way you predicted beforehand, might be described metaphorically as wielding the knife. Calling it a “stab in the back” is both inaccurate and grotesque.
You should be ashamed to defend such nonsense.
I'm sorry you seem to be so upset about this. Stabbing in the back is a perfectly apt metaphor for what happened to Truss, given that the briefing against her was relentless and anonymous. If you prefer to call it 'helping to boot someone out', that's fine by me; the two mean very much the same.
I think there is another factor in Sunak's favour re: membership "vote". If Johnson makes the threshold and insists on a vote then the markets might react extremely unfavourably, immediately. Something to make members pause for thought before sending in their emails...
I doubt it, the old fools are impervious to this. They'll blame it on some international conspiracy and put their votes on for Boris as an act of rebellion against these unnamed conspirators. A steady diet of the Mail and Telegraph telling them they are right and the world is wrong had addled their brains.
Steve Baker Jesse Norman Geoffrey Cox Theresa Villiers
Since yesterday - two Truss and two Sunak - to Sunak's tally helps him.
My current forecast is:
Sunak 160 (+5) Boris 104 (-6) Mordaunt 30 (n/c)
I keep asking this but I haven't seen a reply.
Guido is giving Boris a total of 75, but only 59 are nameable, because - he says - the others have positions that means they must remain "publicly neutral", though they have a vote.
Obviously in relation to the nominations the question is - if they have to remain "publicly neutral", can they nominate a candidate?
Because if they can't, then a naive extrapolation of current support to nominations will leave him well short of 100, whether on Guido's numbers or the BBC's.
Does anyone know the answer to this? Because without an answer, all the speculation is no more than hot air.
They could privately nominate. AIUI all nominations except proposer and seconder are secret.
Steve Baker Jesse Norman Geoffrey Cox Theresa Villiers
Since yesterday - two Truss and two Sunak - to Sunak's tally helps him.
My current forecast is:
Sunak 160 (+5) Boris 104 (-6) Mordaunt 30 (n/c)
I keep asking this but I haven't seen a reply.
Guido is giving Boris a total of 75, but only 59 are nameable, because - he says - the others have positions that means they must remain "publicly neutral", though they have a vote.
Obviously in relation to the nominations the question is - if they have to remain "publicly neutral", can they nominate a candidate?
Because if they can't, then a naive extrapolation of current support to nominations will leave him well short of 100, whether on Guido's numbers or the BBC's.
Does anyone know the answer to this? Because without an answer, all the speculation is no more than hot air.
I think only the first two nominees are publicly named. The unnamed can form the balance of 98.
i always assumed that Rishi really was 'ambushed by cake' whereas Johnson was the central cause and inspiration of the law-breaking culture at No 10. That along with the corruption, the lying and the shielding of sexual offenders don't incline me to be generous to Johnson.
Talking to local Cons I find -
They want Johnson back Many will not vote for a Con Party led by Rishi They don't understand that any Johnson come-back would be mired in allegations from Day One and probably wouldn't last too long. Several thought Truss was treated very unfairly and was stabbed in the back by Rishi.
Purely anecdotal but the Cons had better get on their knees and pray that Johnson doesn't get to 100. If he does the clock may well be ticking on the whole party
WTF is this continual “stabbed in the back” nonsense ?
1918 Germany anyone?
Sure, it’s distasteful. But in this case it’s utter mince. Sunak warned of the consequences of Truss’s policies before she won. Both he and his supporters were almost entirely excluded from her administration, which then experienced the predicted disaster. Whether he owed any loyalty to her is questionable; even if he did, to suggest any kind if ‘betrayal’ plums the depths of absurdity.
These people are just mad.
That the stabbing was justified, due to Sunak and his supporters being 'excluded from the administration' is debatable. Professing confusion that anyone is alleging stabbing at all is amnesia.
I see you’re one of the mad ones on this.
Great riposte.
Let me explain again for you, then. Helping boot out a disastrous PM who had run the government into the ground, in exactly the way you predicted beforehand, might be described metaphorically as wielding the knife. Calling it a “stab in the back” is both inaccurate and grotesque.
You should be ashamed to defend such nonsense.
I'm sorry you seem to be so upset about this. Stabbing in the back is a perfectly apt metaphor for what happened to Truss, given that the briefing against her was relentless and anonymous. If you prefer to call it 'helping to boot someone out', that's fine by me; the two mean very much the same.
Truss booted herself out with that moronic budget. You can deny it all you like but you simply lack the understanding of how gilt markets operate to realise how terrible it was and just how close the UK was to economic ruin.
Steve Baker Jesse Norman Geoffrey Cox Theresa Villiers
Since yesterday - two Truss and two Sunak - to Sunak's tally helps him.
My current forecast is:
Sunak 160 (+5) Boris 104 (-6) Mordaunt 30 (n/c)
I keep asking this but I haven't seen a reply.
Guido is giving Boris a total of 75, but only 59 are nameable, because - he says - the others have positions that means they must remain "publicly neutral", though they have a vote.
Obviously in relation to the nominations the question is - if they have to remain "publicly neutral", can they nominate a candidate?
Because if they can't, then a naive extrapolation of current support to nominations will leave him well short of 100, whether on Guido's numbers or the BBC's.
Does anyone know the answer to this? Because without an answer, all the speculation is no more than hot air.
They could privately nominate. AIUI all nominations except proposer and seconder are secret.
Makes sense.
Kemi Badenoch, Nadhim Zahawi, Jeremy Hunt and Suella Braverman all made it last time on the basis of unknown backers. Incidentally my forecast ignores the anons, because it needs a name to match against the previous vote list.
Steve Baker Jesse Norman Geoffrey Cox Theresa Villiers
Since yesterday - two Truss and two Sunak - to Sunak's tally helps him.
My current forecast is:
Sunak 160 (+5) Boris 104 (-6) Mordaunt 30 (n/c)
I keep asking this but I haven't seen a reply.
Guido is giving Boris a total of 75, but only 59 are nameable, because - he says - the others have positions that means they must remain "publicly neutral", though they have a vote.
Obviously in relation to the nominations the question is - if they have to remain "publicly neutral", can they nominate a candidate?
Because if they can't, then a naive extrapolation of current support to nominations will leave him well short of 100, whether on Guido's numbers or the BBC's.
Does anyone know the answer to this? Because without an answer, all the speculation is no more than hot air.
I think only the first two nominees are publicly named. The unnamed can form the balance of 98.
Is my understanding.
Understanding based on what, though? Anything you can quote? Or just a vague impression?
We’re heading toward an extinction level conservative event if Boris stands.
I just cannot comprehend how MPs in significant positions of power can re endorse Johnson. We head straight into more scandal from day one - and they actively welcome it?
36% of the vote on that JL Partners poll with Boris is not an 'extinction level event' it is what Cameron got in 2010.
Truss was leading the Tories to less than 20% of the vote and an 'extinction level event' neither Boris nor Rishi would be, both get well over 30% on the JL poll
If you think 36% holds when a large majority of MPs won’t be supporting him, then you are placing too much faith in polls.
There is not a chance that a party that chooses Johnson - against many of the warnings and the looming investigation against him - retains 36%
Johnson supporters seem to be assuming that if it goes to the members he wins. I'm not sure. Sunak got 43% last time so doesn't need much of a swing to be elected.
An example of what having an industrial policy looks like in a country and economy of similar (slightly smaller) size to the UK. Chances of similar developments here are slim to none.
Samsung SDI seeks to lead battery biz with new cathode plant https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2022/10/129_338408.html Samsung SDI boosted its capability in the electric vehicle (EV) battery business by completing the construction of a joint-venture cathode factory in Pohang, North Gyeongsang Province, the company said Friday.
Samsung SDI said EcoPro EM, a joint venture between the company and battery material maker EcoPro BM, held a ceremony marking the completion of their CAM7 plant in the southeastern port city.
The CAM7 plant is able to produce 54,000 tons of cathodes a year, which ranks it at No. 1 globally. Cathode is a key material for EV batteries and accounts for about 40 percent of battery production costs. …
The fear is palpable in the latest posts from Stuart Dickson.
There is definitely concern in the SNP, see the analysis of their conference speechs.
OTOH, any losses to Labour would be more than offset by gains from the Tories in Moray, Aberdeenshire and the borders. And I don't think the SNP are that bothered by actually losing seats - it's whether they get over that magic 50% in votes mark (SNP + Greens). They can then claim they have a rock solid case for Indyref2
What chance people holding their noses and voting for the backstabbing Labour losers.
Like I said, the market is hypersensitive to anything vaguely positive for Johnson.
Boris has only had 4 more stick their head above the parapet for him in the past 24 hours.
Stick a fork in him, he's done.
Geoffrey Cox, Theresa Villiers, Lord Frost, Kemi Badenoch and Steve Baker are all going for Sunak.
The ERG are very split on this. The most sensible ones have smelt the coffee.
He'd be getting all their support 3 years ago.
I wouldn't have had Lord Frost on the sensible side of such a divide within the ERG. So I find it notable that he's come out in support of Sunak, instead of Johnson.
I think there is another factor in Sunak's favour re: membership "vote". If Johnson makes the threshold and insists on a vote then the markets might react extremely unfavourably, immediately. Something to make members pause for thought before sending in their emails...
I doubt it, the old fools are impervious to this. They'll blame it on some international conspiracy and put their votes on for Boris as an act of rebellion against these unnamed conspirators. A steady diet of the Mail and Telegraph telling them they are right and the world is wrong had addled their brains.
You don't need a conspiracy of your own. Look at Bank of England polling - a large proportion of the population believe rising rates are good for them personally. If you're a Conservative member it's disproportionately likely you have no mortgage, cash savings, and children/grandchildren you will be helping with a large deposit.
5% savings rates and a house price crash? Yes please!
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 · 17m This is Bennism, Tony Bennism, from the Tory party chairman of all people. Extraordinary to see. More evidence they are destined to split. The populist, crazy Johnson wing now needs its own party.
The Scottish Nationalists like to make a lot of the voting intention differences between England and Scotland to argue that Scotland is politically distinct from England, that therefore there isn't a unified political demos, and so Scotland needs to be independent.
The issue with the age-divide in voting intention is that this divide is so large, that those aged 65+ are clearly inhabiting a different political world to the rest of the country. Even after all that has happened over the last year, they would still vote for a Tory government over a Labour one. It suggests that Britain (or England & Wales if you prefer), is deeply divided among itself, arguably we no longer have a unified political demos, and this internal division will make tackling our problems much more difficult. Most likely the country is not even united over what the problems are.
A certain amount of division and dissent is healthy, and too much consensus is a bad thing, but there has to be some common ground to make progress. Until this divide is reduced I think it is going to act as a barrier to reform, whether from the left or the right.
Well we have few Scottish parties to vote for , the majority are corrupt sub regional London party sockpuppets. Leaves you the weird mental cases the Greens, the SNP who are run by a mafia or a few very samall independence parties. Horrible choices all round.
i always assumed that Rishi really was 'ambushed by cake' whereas Johnson was the central cause and inspiration of the law-breaking culture at No 10. That along with the corruption, the lying and the shielding of sexual offenders don't incline me to be generous to Johnson.
Talking to local Cons I find -
They want Johnson back Many will not vote for a Con Party led by Rishi They don't understand that any Johnson come-back would be mired in allegations from Day One and probably wouldn't last too long. Several thought Truss was treated very unfairly and was stabbed in the back by Rishi.
Purely anecdotal but the Cons had better get on their knees and pray that Johnson doesn't get to 100. If he does the clock may well be ticking on the whole party
WTF is this continual “stabbed in the back” nonsense ?
1918 Germany anyone?
Sure, it’s distasteful. But in this case it’s utter mince. Sunak warned of the consequences of Truss’s policies before she won. Both he and his supporters were almost entirely excluded from her administration, which then experienced the predicted disaster. Whether he owed any loyalty to her is questionable; even if he did, to suggest any kind if ‘betrayal’ plums the depths of absurdity.
These people are just mad.
That the stabbing was justified, due to Sunak and his supporters being 'excluded from the administration' is debatable. Professing confusion that anyone is alleging stabbing at all is amnesia.
I see you’re one of the mad ones on this.
Great riposte.
Let me explain again for you, then. Helping boot out a disastrous PM who had run the government into the ground, in exactly the way you predicted beforehand, might be described metaphorically as wielding the knife. Calling it a “stab in the back” is both inaccurate and grotesque.
You should be ashamed to defend such nonsense.
I'm sorry you seem to be so upset about this. Stabbing in the back is a perfectly apt metaphor for what happened to Truss, given that the briefing against her was relentless and anonymous. If you prefer to call it 'helping to boot someone out', that's fine by me; the two mean very much the same.
Truss booted herself out with that moronic budget. You can deny it all you like but you simply lack the understanding of how gilt markets operate to realise how terrible it was and just how close the UK was to economic ruin.
I was not a fan of the mini budget, or of Kwarteng, and I am on the record as questioning his apointment long before any mini budget was mooted. That said, as we've discussed before, the biggest part of the 'moronic' budget's cost comprised the energy price freeze, which no other stakeholders in the debate before or since have proposed to do anything about. The opposition to it focused almost solely on the tax cut for high earners - it was dishonest and political in nature; it had bugger all to do with avoiding economic ruin.
The longer version promising "integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level of government" amongst other things makes it a good initial pitch
Not with Tory members and 100 of their MPs.
Brady should have set the level at 180 - only someone with a majority to get nominated!
The Conservative Party can claim to be Europe’s leaders in defenestration.
Now they’re considering a new manoeuvre: refenestration. Finding the old guy, pulling him back in through the window and putting him back on the throne. It won't work
We’re heading toward an extinction level conservative event if Boris stands.
I just cannot comprehend how MPs in significant positions of power can re endorse Johnson. We head straight into more scandal from day one - and they actively welcome it?
36% of the vote on that JL Partners poll with Boris is not an 'extinction level event' it is what Cameron got in 2010.
Truss was leading the Tories to less than 20% of the vote and an 'extinction level event' neither Boris nor Rishi would be, both get well over 30% on the JL poll
It will be all over in weeks as tresignations and the privileges committee take him down and it is just shocking he and his supporters cannot see that they are in the process of destroying the conservative party
See new Tweets Conversation Nadhim Zahawi @nadhimzahawi · 6m I’m backing Boris. He got the big calls right, whether it was ordering more vaccines ahead of more waves of covid, arming 🇺🇦 early against the advice of some, or stepping down for the sake of unity. But now, Britain needs him back. We need to unite to deliver on our manifesto 1/2 Nadhim Zahawi @nadhimzahawi When I was Chancellor, I saw a preview of what Boris 2.0 would look like. He was contrite & honest about his mistakes. He’d learned from those mistakes how he could run No10 & the country better. With a unified team behind him, he is the one to lead us to victory & prosperity 2/2
Conclusion: Zahawi is an idiot.
He has not exactly made a compelling case to be kept in the next Cabinet, has he?
For a while I thought he was smarter than this.
For a while.
Are you still backing Penny? Does she still have a chance?
Her only remote chance is if Boris does not run but endorses her. Still not sure that would be enough to bring her back in the game.
I'll be happy to see her in a big job where (hopefully) she can shine and be a part of the sales pitch for a new "quietly getting on with job" pragmatic government under Rishi.
in a big jobbie more like, a fake talentless grifter.
The latest YouGov, which has the Tories on 19%, still sees them with a lead in the 65+ age group.
What has happened to that age group?
you make it sound like they are WRONG - its a bit arrogant - there is no right or wrong way to vote
The thing is, the Tories are a chaotic mess, a mess of unprecedented proportions in British political history. They've lost the confidence of the markets, and they are nearly 40 points behind with the country as a whole - so why does that age group still think the Tories are best-placed to run the country?
This is not a small difference. It demands an explanation.
The explanation is that young people have almost always preferred Labour to the Tories and elderly voters have almost always preferred the Tories to Labour, and that hasn't changed. 1987 was an exception when young people preferred the Conservatives.
People keep saying that - and it is certainly true that there has always been a gradient from younger to old on Tory preference over Labour - but for some reason, glossing over the magnitude of the recent shift and huge steepening of the gradient.
Con lead over Lab per age group, vice Mori, since 1987 (earliest election with consistently comparable age groups):
Should not be forgotten Blair won over 65s in 1997
Yes, he did. But he did it by lifting the entire line upwards. Not by altering the steepness of the slope. Every election up until the last three had a similar such pattern. Sometimes a little steeper; sometimes a little less, sometimes with a kink in it - but each of these were by a handful of points.
This was overlain on the overall vote share - moving up or down as the country voted lefter or righter (so as to speak), but with the slope the same shape.
That's changed. The Tories need to get the younger to head right far faster as they age in order to stay in the same place. Maybe it's possible; maybe it's not. My feeling is that anyone who pronounces authoritatively on whether or not to expect it is talking their own book.
i always assumed that Rishi really was 'ambushed by cake' whereas Johnson was the central cause and inspiration of the law-breaking culture at No 10. That along with the corruption, the lying and the shielding of sexual offenders don't incline me to be generous to Johnson.
Talking to local Cons I find -
They want Johnson back Many will not vote for a Con Party led by Rishi They don't understand that any Johnson come-back would be mired in allegations from Day One and probably wouldn't last too long. Several thought Truss was treated very unfairly and was stabbed in the back by Rishi.
Purely anecdotal but the Cons had better get on their knees and pray that Johnson doesn't get to 100. If he does the clock may well be ticking on the whole party
WTF is this continual “stabbed in the back” nonsense ?
1918 Germany anyone?
Sure, it’s distasteful. But in this case it’s utter mince. Sunak warned of the consequences of Truss’s policies before she won. Both he and his supporters were almost entirely excluded from her administration, which then experienced the predicted disaster. Whether he owed any loyalty to her is questionable; even if he did, to suggest any kind if ‘betrayal’ plums the depths of absurdity.
These people are just mad.
That the stabbing was justified, due to Sunak and his supporters being 'excluded from the administration' is debatable. Professing confusion that anyone is alleging stabbing at all is amnesia.
I see you’re one of the mad ones on this.
Great riposte.
Let me explain again for you, then. Helping boot out a disastrous PM who had run the government into the ground, in exactly the way you predicted beforehand, might be described metaphorically as wielding the knife. Calling it a “stab in the back” is both inaccurate and grotesque.
You should be ashamed to defend such nonsense.
I'm sorry you seem to be so upset about this. Stabbing in the back is a perfectly apt metaphor for what happened to Truss, given that the briefing against her was relentless and anonymous. If you prefer to call it 'helping to boot someone out', that's fine by me; the two mean very much the same.
Truss booted herself out with that moronic budget. You can deny it all you like but you simply lack the understanding of how gilt markets operate to realise how terrible it was and just how close the UK was to economic ruin.
I was not a fan of the mini budget, or of Kwarteng, and I am on the record as questioning his apointment long before any mini budget was mooted. That said, as we've discussed before, the biggest part of the 'moronic' budget's cost comprised the energy price freeze, which no other stakeholders in the debate before or since have proposed to do anything about. The opposition to it focused almost solely on the tax cut for high earners - it was dishonest and political in nature; it had bugger all to do with avoiding economic ruin.
The energy price freeze was already known about before the minibudget, and was delimited to two years. In itself it would not have been enough to trigger market panic.
We’re heading toward an extinction level conservative event if Boris stands.
I just cannot comprehend how MPs in significant positions of power can re endorse Johnson. We head straight into more scandal from day one - and they actively welcome it?
36% of the vote on that JL Partners poll with Boris is not an 'extinction level event' it is what Cameron got in 2010.
Truss was leading the Tories to less than 20% of the vote and an 'extinction level event' neither Boris nor Rishi would be, both get well over 30% on the JL poll
It will be all over in weeks as tresignations and the privileges committee take him down and it is just shocking he and his supporters cannot see that they are in the process of destroying the conservative party
Absolutely this. There’s no stability from this point onwards - and I have no idea why Johnson backers somehow think all is forgiven and people will fail in behind him
Steve Baker Jesse Norman Geoffrey Cox Theresa Villiers
Since yesterday - two Truss and two Sunak - to Sunak's tally helps him.
My current forecast is:
Sunak 160 (+5) Boris 104 (-6) Mordaunt 30 (n/c)
I keep asking this but I haven't seen a reply.
Guido is giving Boris a total of 75, but only 59 are nameable, because - he says - the others have positions that means they must remain "publicly neutral", though they have a vote.
Obviously in relation to the nominations the question is - if they have to remain "publicly neutral", can they nominate a candidate?
Because if they can't, then a naive extrapolation of current support to nominations will leave him well short of 100, whether on Guido's numbers or the BBC's.
Does anyone know the answer to this? Because without an answer, all the speculation is no more than hot air.
Suspect they want guarantee he has 100 names guaranteed and will stand, be slimy cabinet and payroll members who don't want to be turfed off the gravy train in event he does not go ahead.
The latest YouGov, which has the Tories on 19%, still sees them with a lead in the 65+ age group.
What has happened to that age group?
you make it sound like they are WRONG - its a bit arrogant - there is no right or wrong way to vote
The thing is, the Tories are a chaotic mess, a mess of unprecedented proportions in British political history. They've lost the confidence of the markets, and they are nearly 40 points behind with the country as a whole - so why does that age group still think the Tories are best-placed to run the country?
This is not a small difference. It demands an explanation.
The explanation is that young people have almost always preferred Labour to the Tories and elderly voters have almost always preferred the Tories to Labour, and that hasn't changed. 1987 was an exception when young people preferred the Conservatives.
People keep saying that - and it is certainly true that there has always been a gradient from younger to old on Tory preference over Labour - but for some reason, glossing over the magnitude of the recent shift and huge steepening of the gradient.
Con lead over Lab per age group, vice Mori, since 1987 (earliest election with consistently comparable age groups):
Should not be forgotten Blair won over 65s in 1997
Yes, he did. But he did it by lifting the entire line upwards. Not by altering the steepness of the slope. Every election up until the last three had a similar such pattern. Sometimes a little steeper; sometimes a little less, sometimes with a kink in it - but each of these were by a handful of points.
This was overlain on the overall vote share - moving up or down as the country voted lefter or righter (so as to speak), but with the slope the same shape.
That's changed. The Tories need to get the younger to head right far faster as they age in order to stay in the same place. Maybe it's possible; maybe it's not. My feeling is that anyone who pronounces authoritatively on whether or not to expect it is talking their own book.
I don't think you can predict whether this is a temporary or a permanent change until you understand why it has changed. For those who deny that there has been a change at all, then they have particularly little chance of making a meaningful prediction.
Like I said, the market is hypersensitive to anything vaguely positive for Johnson.
Boris has only had 4 more stick their head above the parapet for him in the past 24 hours.
Stick a fork in him, he's done.
Hope you are right. My gut is telling me otherwise. I think he has 100 and would likely win the membership vote - the key argument being that he has a mandate. I'm dearly hoping that he won't stand. If he does and if I can get anything like the current odds I'll be on him.
Labour have gained 20,000 new members since the party conference, I think you have to hand it to Starmer, just by being Starmer, he is regularly polling ahead of the Tories, and now the Labour membership is on the rise again, also the party are now receiving money from high profile donors, that stopped in Corbyns tenure, labour stood on the brink at their last leadership election, a win for Rebecca Long Bailey would surely have been the end for them, whatever happens here on in, the Labour Party owe a debt of gratitude to starmer
People like winners and Starmer / Labour is seen as a winner at the moment. There are probably a few in there who may be thinking about their future political careers at whatever level and realise now is the time to join up (not that I would like to accuse them of being March Violets or anything).
Counterintuitively, if you are politically flexible, you want to be in Government, and you aren’t already a name in the Labour Party, now is actually the time to join the Tories (thinking of the next but one government).
i always assumed that Rishi really was 'ambushed by cake' whereas Johnson was the central cause and inspiration of the law-breaking culture at No 10. That along with the corruption, the lying and the shielding of sexual offenders don't incline me to be generous to Johnson.
Talking to local Cons I find -
They want Johnson back Many will not vote for a Con Party led by Rishi They don't understand that any Johnson come-back would be mired in allegations from Day One and probably wouldn't last too long. Several thought Truss was treated very unfairly and was stabbed in the back by Rishi.
Purely anecdotal but the Cons had better get on their knees and pray that Johnson doesn't get to 100. If he does the clock may well be ticking on the whole party
WTF is this continual “stabbed in the back” nonsense ?
1918 Germany anyone?
Sure, it’s distasteful. But in this case it’s utter mince. Sunak warned of the consequences of Truss’s policies before she won. Both he and his supporters were almost entirely excluded from her administration, which then experienced the predicted disaster. Whether he owed any loyalty to her is questionable; even if he did, to suggest any kind if ‘betrayal’ plums the depths of absurdity.
These people are just mad.
That the stabbing was justified, due to Sunak and his supporters being 'excluded from the administration' is debatable. Professing confusion that anyone is alleging stabbing at all is amnesia.
I see you’re one of the mad ones on this.
Great riposte.
Let me explain again for you, then. Helping boot out a disastrous PM who had run the government into the ground, in exactly the way you predicted beforehand, might be described metaphorically as wielding the knife. Calling it a “stab in the back” is both inaccurate and grotesque.
You should be ashamed to defend such nonsense.
I'm sorry you seem to be so upset about this. Stabbing in the back is a perfectly apt metaphor for what happened to Truss, given that the briefing against her was relentless and anonymous. If you prefer to call it 'helping to boot someone out', that's fine by me; the two mean very much the same.
Truss booted herself out with that moronic budget. You can deny it all you like but you simply lack the understanding of how gilt markets operate to realise how terrible it was and just how close the UK was to economic ruin.
I was not a fan of the mini budget, or of Kwarteng, and I am on the record as questioning his apointment long before any mini budget was mooted. That said, as we've discussed before, the biggest part of the 'moronic' budget's cost comprised the energy price freeze, which no other stakeholders in the debate before or since have proposed to do anything about. The opposition to it focused almost solely on the tax cut for high earners - it was dishonest and political in nature; it had bugger all to do with avoiding economic ruin.
It was the general policy of borrowing to pay for tax cuts that spooked the markets as I understand it.
If this is the line they push and if he does follow through on insisting to take it to the members then we really are ALL in trouble.
Anyone else starting to get a bad feeling about this?
This is what I have been saying from the start. He only needs to get to 100 MPs; he’ll leave the rest to the members and we all know how bat shit crazy they are. The country is screwed but at least the filth that is the Conservative Party will be destroyed.
The latest YouGov, which has the Tories on 19%, still sees them with a lead in the 65+ age group.
What has happened to that age group?
you make it sound like they are WRONG - its a bit arrogant - there is no right or wrong way to vote
The thing is, the Tories are a chaotic mess, a mess of unprecedented proportions in British political history. They've lost the confidence of the markets, and they are nearly 40 points behind with the country as a whole - so why does that age group still think the Tories are best-placed to run the country?
This is not a small difference. It demands an explanation.
The explanation is that young people have almost always preferred Labour to the Tories and elderly voters have almost always preferred the Tories to Labour, and that hasn't changed. 1987 was an exception when young people preferred the Conservatives.
People keep saying that - and it is certainly true that there has always been a gradient from younger to old on Tory preference over Labour - but for some reason, glossing over the magnitude of the recent shift and huge steepening of the gradient.
Con lead over Lab per age group, vice Mori, since 1987 (earliest election with consistently comparable age groups):
Should not be forgotten Blair won over 65s in 1997
Yes, he did. But he did it by lifting the entire line upwards. Not by altering the steepness of the slope. Every election up until the last three had a similar such pattern. Sometimes a little steeper; sometimes a little less, sometimes with a kink in it - but each of these were by a handful of points.
This was overlain on the overall vote share - moving up or down as the country voted lefter or righter (so as to speak), but with the slope the same shape.
That's changed. The Tories need to get the younger to head right far faster as they age in order to stay in the same place. Maybe it's possible; maybe it's not. My feeling is that anyone who pronounces authoritatively on whether or not to expect it is talking their own book.
I don't think you can predict whether this is a temporary or a permanent change until you understand why it has changed. For those who deny that there has been a change at all, then they have particularly little chance of making a meaningful prediction.
Another important fact is that there were just far fewer over-65s when Blair became leader, compared to today.
i always assumed that Rishi really was 'ambushed by cake' whereas Johnson was the central cause and inspiration of the law-breaking culture at No 10. That along with the corruption, the lying and the shielding of sexual offenders don't incline me to be generous to Johnson.
Talking to local Cons I find -
They want Johnson back Many will not vote for a Con Party led by Rishi They don't understand that any Johnson come-back would be mired in allegations from Day One and probably wouldn't last too long. Several thought Truss was treated very unfairly and was stabbed in the back by Rishi.
Purely anecdotal but the Cons had better get on their knees and pray that Johnson doesn't get to 100. If he does the clock may well be ticking on the whole party
WTF is this continual “stabbed in the back” nonsense ?
1918 Germany anyone?
Sure, it’s distasteful. But in this case it’s utter mince. Sunak warned of the consequences of Truss’s policies before she won. Both he and his supporters were almost entirely excluded from her administration, which then experienced the predicted disaster. Whether he owed any loyalty to her is questionable; even if he did, to suggest any kind if ‘betrayal’ plums the depths of absurdity.
These people are just mad.
That the stabbing was justified, due to Sunak and his supporters being 'excluded from the administration' is debatable. Professing confusion that anyone is alleging stabbing at all is amnesia.
I see you’re one of the mad ones on this.
Great riposte.
Let me explain again for you, then. Helping boot out a disastrous PM who had run the government into the ground, in exactly the way you predicted beforehand, might be described metaphorically as wielding the knife. Calling it a “stab in the back” is both inaccurate and grotesque.
You should be ashamed to defend such nonsense.
I'm sorry you seem to be so upset about this. Stabbing in the back is a perfectly apt metaphor for what happened to Truss, given that the briefing against her was relentless and anonymous. If you prefer to call it 'helping to boot someone out', that's fine by me; the two mean very much the same.
Truss booted herself out with that moronic budget. You can deny it all you like but you simply lack the understanding of how gilt markets operate to realise how terrible it was and just how close the UK was to economic ruin.
I was not a fan of the mini budget, or of Kwarteng, and I am on the record as questioning his apointment long before any mini budget was mooted. That said, as we've discussed before, the biggest part of the 'moronic' budget's cost comprised the energy price freeze, which no other stakeholders in the debate before or since have proposed to do anything about. The opposition to it focused almost solely on the tax cut for high earners - it was dishonest and political in nature; it had bugger all to do with avoiding economic ruin.
The energy price freeze was already known about before the minibudget, and was delimited to two years. In itself it would not have been enough to trigger market panic.
It was the tax cuts with no plan to manage them which spooked the markets. The gilts went up subsequently and with them the fixed rate deals. We all know interest rates will rise, but the slower the better surely. The cliff face will crucify people. (Mixing my metaphors)
The Scottish Nationalists like to make a lot of the voting intention differences between England and Scotland to argue that Scotland is politically distinct from England, that therefore there isn't a unified political demos, and so Scotland needs to be independent.
The issue with the age-divide in voting intention is that this divide is so large, that those aged 65+ are clearly inhabiting a different political world to the rest of the country. Even after all that has happened over the last year, they would still vote for a Tory government over a Labour one. It suggests that Britain (or England & Wales if you prefer), is deeply divided among itself, arguably we no longer have a unified political demos, and this internal division will make tackling our problems much more difficult. Most likely the country is not even united over what the problems are.
A certain amount of division and dissent is healthy, and too much consensus is a bad thing, but there has to be some common ground to make progress. Until this divide is reduced I think it is going to act as a barrier to reform, whether from the left or the right.
So the weirdly capitalised 'Scottish Nationalists' are right then?
We’re heading toward an extinction level conservative event if Boris stands.
I just cannot comprehend how MPs in significant positions of power can re endorse Johnson. We head straight into more scandal from day one - and they actively welcome it?
36% of the vote on that JL Partners poll with Boris is not an 'extinction level event' it is what Cameron got in 2010.
Truss was leading the Tories to less than 20% of the vote and an 'extinction level event' neither Boris nor Rishi would be, both get well over 30% on the JL poll
It will be all over in weeks as tresignations and the privileges committee take him down and it is just shocking he and his supporters cannot see that they are in the process of destroying the conservative party
Absolutely this. There’s no stability from this point onwards - and I have no idea why Johnson backers somehow think all is forgiven and people will fail in behind him
I don't think it's only Johnson backers who are suffering from that delusion. I believe I am suffering from it myself.
Implicitly I am assuming that, if Sunak becomes leader instead of Johnson, and Hunt remains Chancellor, that they will manage to smooth things over for the next year or two until the general election. Yes, the economy will be a bit crap, and public services suffer, but subconsciously I'm essentially expecting nothing that dramatic will happen.
Intellectually I think this is denial. The Tories are deeply split, both politically and personally. Many proposed policies are unpopular with one faction or another. The budgets will contain many unpleasant measures that will provoke opposition. The Tories are already past the event horizon. The rest of their time in government holds out the prospect of only more infighting. Only the pain of electoral defeat and the impotence of opposition can teach them that what they have in common is more important than what they disagree on.
Therefore although previously the names of nominators have not been made public, it could be different this time (for all we know). In addition, it may well be that the nomination lists are available to Tory MPs, even if they are not public.
Steve Baker Jesse Norman Geoffrey Cox Theresa Villiers
Since yesterday - two Truss and two Sunak - to Sunak's tally helps him.
My current forecast is:
Sunak 160 (+5) Boris 104 (-6) Mordaunt 30 (n/c)
I keep asking this but I haven't seen a reply.
Guido is giving Boris a total of 75, but only 59 are nameable, because - he says - the others have positions that means they must remain "publicly neutral", though they have a vote.
Obviously in relation to the nominations the question is - if they have to remain "publicly neutral", can they nominate a candidate?
Because if they can't, then a naive extrapolation of current support to nominations will leave him well short of 100, whether on Guido's numbers or the BBC's.
Does anyone know the answer to this? Because without an answer, all the speculation is no more than hot air.
Suspect they want guarantee he has 100 names guaranteed and will stand, be slimy cabinet and payroll members who don't want to be turfed off the gravy train in event he does not go ahead.
What do the seven Boris backers from the cabinet have in common? They know their only chance of holding cabinet position is with Johnson as leader.
It perhaps goes without saying that the underlying cause of this insanity is Brexit, a utopian vision that was never adequately defined during the referendum campaign and thus became all things to all people. To Suella Braverman, it was a chance to cut immigration; to Liz Truss, a chance to increase it. For some, it was about state aid; for others, Singapore Upon Thames. So, despite various attempts to enact the idea, each of which has conspicuously failed, everyone feels their particular version has been betrayed. Brexit is thus a zombie policy, both alive and dead, tested to destruction and never tested at all; an apparition hovering over the party, perhaps indefinitely.
We’re heading toward an extinction level conservative event if Boris stands.
I just cannot comprehend how MPs in significant positions of power can re endorse Johnson. We head straight into more scandal from day one - and they actively welcome it?
36% of the vote on that JL Partners poll with Boris is not an 'extinction level event' it is what Cameron got in 2010.
Truss was leading the Tories to less than 20% of the vote and an 'extinction level event' neither Boris nor Rishi would be, both get well over 30% on the JL poll
It will be all over in weeks as tresignations and the privileges committee take him down and it is just shocking he and his supporters cannot see that they are in the process of destroying the conservative party
Absolutely this. There’s no stability from this point onwards - and I have no idea why Johnson backers somehow think all is forgiven and people will fail in behind him
Because the Johnsonian method is "Get through today and survive to tomorrow. Tomorrow, rinse and repeat" He is the ultimate short-termist.
So if you imagine for one moment that Boris is concerned with events that are weeks or months away, you are deluding yourself.
i always assumed that Rishi really was 'ambushed by cake' whereas Johnson was the central cause and inspiration of the law-breaking culture at No 10. That along with the corruption, the lying and the shielding of sexual offenders don't incline me to be generous to Johnson.
Talking to local Cons I find -
They want Johnson back Many will not vote for a Con Party led by Rishi They don't understand that any Johnson come-back would be mired in allegations from Day One and probably wouldn't last too long. Several thought Truss was treated very unfairly and was stabbed in the back by Rishi.
Purely anecdotal but the Cons had better get on their knees and pray that Johnson doesn't get to 100. If he does the clock may well be ticking on the whole party
WTF is this continual “stabbed in the back” nonsense ?
1918 Germany anyone?
Sure, it’s distasteful. But in this case it’s utter mince. Sunak warned of the consequences of Truss’s policies before she won. Both he and his supporters were almost entirely excluded from her administration, which then experienced the predicted disaster. Whether he owed any loyalty to her is questionable; even if he did, to suggest any kind if ‘betrayal’ plums the depths of absurdity.
These people are just mad.
That the stabbing was justified, due to Sunak and his supporters being 'excluded from the administration' is debatable. Professing confusion that anyone is alleging stabbing at all is amnesia.
I see you’re one of the mad ones on this.
Great riposte.
Let me explain again for you, then. Helping boot out a disastrous PM who had run the government into the ground, in exactly the way you predicted beforehand, might be described metaphorically as wielding the knife. Calling it a “stab in the back” is both inaccurate and grotesque.
You should be ashamed to defend such nonsense.
I'm sorry you seem to be so upset about this. Stabbing in the back is a perfectly apt metaphor for what happened to Truss, given that the briefing against her was relentless and anonymous. If you prefer to call it 'helping to boot someone out', that's fine by me; the two mean very much the same.
Truss booted herself out with that moronic budget. You can deny it all you like but you simply lack the understanding of how gilt markets operate to realise how terrible it was and just how close the UK was to economic ruin.
I was not a fan of the mini budget, or of Kwarteng, and I am on the record as questioning his apointment long before any mini budget was mooted. That said, as we've discussed before, the biggest part of the 'moronic' budget's cost comprised the energy price freeze, which no other stakeholders in the debate before or since have proposed to do anything about. The opposition to it focused almost solely on the tax cut for high earners - it was dishonest and political in nature; it had bugger all to do with avoiding economic ruin.
The energy price freeze was already known about before the minibudget, and was delimited to two years. In itself it would not have been enough to trigger market panic.
It was the tax cuts with no plan to manage them which spooked the markets. The gilts went up subsequently and with them the fixed rate deals. We all know interest rates will rise, but the slower the better surely. The cliff face will crucify people. (Mixing my metaphors)
The Guardian makes the point this morning that when, in 1979, the Thatcher government cut income tax, and indeed other direct taxes, it also almost doubled the rate of VAT! That option isn't available now.
Comments
The situation of the young supporting Labour by 40-35 and the old supporting the Tories by 40-35, is very different to the young supporting Labour by 70-5 and the old supporting the Tories by 70-5, even though the two situations as the same by the way you look at them. The magnitude of the difference is more significant than the direction.
@DPJHodges
·
20m
Given the decisions that have to be taken on spending, there is simply no way the Government continues to function if the Tory party elects a Prime Minister who does not enjoy overwhelming support from Tory MPs. I suspect it would mean an election in weeks, if not days.
Not ideal for a GE within weeks thanks to Johnson.
59 MPs did not express a public view last time, so the model assumes similar this time.
The extrapolation would be@
Sunak 194
Boris 126
Mordaunt 36
But that would be rather unsound, for various reasons. For one, that is 357, which I assume excludes Brady and some MPs without the Whip. But it appears to be Guido's total figure, which I assume is accurate.
If it does come down to Sunak vs Johnson then even in the short time available I suspect Rishi's alleged toxicity will be well and truly stoked by Boris' supporters. They are convinced that it is he who stabbed their king.
He can get into the fucking sea.
As the "stop the membership having a say candidate", Rishi is mopping up plenty of those who might otherwise have gone to Penny Mordaunt. But if it goes to the members, they will know why all those MPs rallied round him.
And reject him. Again.
I just cannot comprehend how MPs in significant positions of power can re endorse Johnson. We head straight into more scandal from day one - and they actively welcome it?
Scottish Labour, Scottish Conservatives and Scottish LDs are on 51% combined
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1582053921916301320?s=20&t=CqM2vLNHnrASQhTLqThYEg
Johnson had the perfect set up in 2019, Corbyn and Brexit . Without that he’s not winning a GE .
Sunak 140 (135named)
Johnson 76 (60 named)
Mordaunt 28 (25 named)
Target is 101 (includes the candidate so with only 113 (though 21 on the spreadsheet are anonymous) left looking that Mordaunt will not get to 100 if Boris actually stands.
Helping boot out a disastrous PM who had run the government into the ground, in exactly the way you predicted beforehand, might be described metaphorically as wielding the knife.
Calling it a “stab in the back” is both inaccurate and grotesque.
You should be ashamed to defend such nonsense.
Whatever next?
Truss was leading the Tories to less than 20% of the vote and an 'extinction level event' neither Boris nor Rishi would be, both get well over 30% on the JL poll
I am quite prepared to say they may do it. I don’t have a lot of faith in Tory members. But if they do they are essentially voting to destroy their party as a serious party of government. So it’s up to them. But I have a little bit more faith than the view that a Boris victory is inevitable.
Like I said, the market is hypersensitive to anything vaguely positive for Johnson.
Guido is giving Boris a total of 75, but only 59 are nameable, because - he says - the others have positions that means they must remain "publicly neutral", though they have a vote.
Obviously in relation to the nominations the question is - if they have to remain "publicly neutral", can they nominate a candidate?
Because if they can't, then a naive extrapolation of current support to nominations will leave him well short of 100, whether on Guido's numbers or the BBC's.
Does anyone know the answer to this? Because without an answer, all the speculation is no more than hot air.
He has been a major
suckupsupporter since the referendumStick a fork in him, he's done.
AIUI all nominations except proposer and seconder are secret.
Is my understanding.
The ERG are very split on this. The most sensible ones have smelt the coffee.
He'd be getting all their support 3 years ago.
Kemi Badenoch, Nadhim Zahawi, Jeremy Hunt and Suella Braverman all made it last time on the basis of unknown backers.
Incidentally my forecast ignores the anons, because it needs a name to match against the previous vote list.
There is not a chance that a party that chooses Johnson - against many of the warnings and the looming investigation against him - retains 36%
Chances of similar developments here are slim to none.
Samsung SDI seeks to lead battery biz with new cathode plant
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2022/10/129_338408.html
Samsung SDI boosted its capability in the electric vehicle (EV) battery business by completing the construction of a joint-venture cathode factory in Pohang, North Gyeongsang Province, the company said Friday.
Samsung SDI said EcoPro EM, a joint venture between the company and battery material maker EcoPro BM, held a ceremony marking the completion of their CAM7 plant in the southeastern port city.
The CAM7 plant is able to produce 54,000 tons of cathodes a year, which ranks it at No. 1 globally. Cathode is a key material for EV batteries and accounts for about 40 percent of battery production costs.
…
https://twitter.com/lukemcgee/status/1584116413756715008
If he can't be World King he is determined to take the Tory Party down with him.
Geoffrey Cox
Theresa Villiers
Steve Baker
Kemi Badenoch
Steve Baker
Lord Frost
David Davis
Steve Barclay
5% savings rates and a house price crash? Yes please!
@iainmartin1
·
17m
This is Bennism, Tony Bennism, from the Tory party chairman of all people. Extraordinary to see. More evidence they are destined to split. The populist, crazy Johnson wing now needs its own party.
Brady should have set the level at 180 - only someone with a majority to get nominated!
The party just won’t hold together if he returns
Now they’re considering a new manoeuvre: refenestration. Finding the old guy, pulling him back in through the window and putting him back on the throne. It won't work
My take:-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/22/no-cheerleader-rishi-will-new-boris-different-old-one/
But he did it by lifting the entire line upwards. Not by altering the steepness of the slope.
Every election up until the last three had a similar such pattern. Sometimes a little steeper; sometimes a little less, sometimes with a kink in it - but each of these were by a handful of points.
This was overlain on the overall vote share - moving up or down as the country voted lefter or righter (so as to speak), but with the slope the same shape.
That's changed. The Tories need to get the younger to head right far faster as they age in order to stay in the same place. Maybe it's possible; maybe it's not. My feeling is that anyone who pronounces authoritatively on whether or not to expect it is talking their own book.
Anyone else starting to get a bad feeling about this?
(Mixing my metaphors)
They are supporting Rishi and not Johnson because they get it.
Implicitly I am assuming that, if Sunak becomes leader instead of Johnson, and Hunt remains Chancellor, that they will manage to smooth things over for the next year or two until the general election. Yes, the economy will be a bit crap, and public services suffer, but subconsciously I'm essentially expecting nothing that dramatic will happen.
Intellectually I think this is denial. The Tories are deeply split, both politically and personally. Many proposed policies are unpopular with one faction or another. The budgets will contain many unpleasant measures that will provoke opposition. The Tories are already past the event horizon. The rest of their time in government holds out the prospect of only more infighting. Only the pain of electoral defeat and the impotence of opposition can teach them that what they have in common is more important than what they disagree on.
Therefore although previously the names of nominators have not been made public, it could be different this time (for all we know). In addition, it may well be that the nomination lists are available to Tory MPs, even if they are not public.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/10/23/boris-johnson-rishi-sunak-tory-leadership-latest-penny-mordaunt/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/there-is-one-cure-for-the-tories-ills-but-theyll-die-before-they-choose-it-qq26jm7np
So if you imagine for one moment that Boris is concerned with events that are weeks or months away, you are deluding yourself.
That option isn't available now.