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.
Clearly able to wipe away all that has gone before and start each day - each moment - afresh. Like a Mindfulness Guru. Or Lindsay Graham.
Did you know, it’s 27 years to the day that the Financial Times killed one of England’s finest poets? They didn’t mean to. It’s just that Gavin Ewart was 79, and they bought him a lunch that involved enough booze to fell an ox
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.
I agree. I am tending to the idea Boris is done. He won't make the 100, though it will be close. But I can't see a billionaire with a non-dom wife pushing through tax cuts and spending cuts in the teeth of falling wages and strikes, being a calm couple of years with a newly united, functioning Tory Party marching behind in lock step. 1% chance of that. Far too many aren't with the programme before the pain has even started.
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.
I want to 'like' this but even though I really dislike a lot of what the Conservatives stand for, and equally some (perhaps many), of their MPs I can't resort to calling the whole Party 'filth.' There are good Conservatives, including on this forum.
We need decency back in politics, which probably means finding the centre and when we don't agree not slurring our opponents in the process.
(None of the things which Boris Johnson represents)
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.
Quite high it would seem, definitely some movement towards them. But doesn't convert to many seats.
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?
I won’t feel bad if Johnson returns - it will confirm to me that the Tory Party is no longer a fit outfit for government. I will be angry at the chancer MPs who support him even though he is patently unfit for office and I would be angry at the members for endorsing such an unfit man as PM for their own weird feelings of satisfaction.
It will give me some clarity that I can no longer ever count myself as a supporter of the Tory Party. With Rishi there is a chance of some redemption in time, though I will be voting Starmer at the next election. Boris would leave me and I am sure many other centre-right leaning voters politically homeless.
I don’t have much fear from Boris 2.0 if it happens, because he will destroy the party and an imminent GE is pretty much a certainty, which he will lose.
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the current stalemate.
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.
And of course, with Johnson, not only do you have the shit storm still coming down the line for all the things he has (or hasn't) done, but you have the shit storm coming within the first week of Parliament when he lies to Parliament and decides to accuse Starmer of being a child murderer or something on the floor of the House.
The first two days of his new Premiership would be a sight.....
Hoyle - "I'd like to welcome the new.... Prime Minister to his post, but I see Steve Baker is trying to catch my eye.... I call Steven Baker."
Baker - "Thank you Mr. Speaker. 112 MPs and myself from this party can't serve under that man. We're off, but before I cross the floor to sit as an independent, can I ask the Right Honourable Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to lay down a VoNC. I and my fellow 112 MPs will be voting with him on this one."
If Johnson, Sunak and Mordaunt all reach 100 then there is a vote of Tory MPs to establish the final two AIUI.
How is that vote conducted? Is it secret? Do they just vote for their choice or do they give a second choice?
Edit: even if there are only two candidates over 100 then there is a indicative vote - is this a secret ballot? If so, some who pledge support to one may vote in secret for the other.
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.
He got 43% against Truss. Johnson isn’t Truss.
And the "Johnson has a mandate" argument may persuade many.
The argument the Nation owes it to Johnson after his stonking win last time, to see what Boris 2.0 can actually deliver? And this will play well with the different electorate once this moves into Phase 2? That at the end of the day it’s Johnson’s eighty seat majority, built on his manifesto, his plan and promises. If Boris 2.0 has learnt from an extensive back catalogue of errors, he still has the potential to be a damn fine PM, to still be PM into the 2030s. If we are dealing with with facts, the Boris 2.0 administration will be economically more dry, it won’t be a cheerleading cabinet, PM Boris won’t be as lazy. Meanwhile Shifty Sunak has done nothing in media interviews or hustings to prove he is remotely PM material, and Truss didn’t create all these economic woes, Sunak stoked and left a lot of them for her as well as presiding over a chancellorship of wasting eye watering sums of money?
If my reading of ConHome is correct, the psyche from the members posting there is definitely not that, quite the opposite.
Having said that though, an announcement tomorrow of Boris 120 Sunak 190 will have a “Uh oh” feel about it.
On topic. Completely agree with TSE - another example for your list is the Truss v Starmer polling was good for Tories, just days and hours before the Starmergasm.
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.
But it doesn’t mean 50+ MPs need to swallow it all, hook, line and sinker
Oh - another point about today's over-65s is that, thanks to Thatcher, they own more property than over-65s when Blair became leader.
If that is the most important factor in the division between the old and young, then the expected fall in house prices would probably lead to the oldies finally turning against the Tories. It means it is plausible that the Tories are not yet at their nadir.
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.
I agree. I am tending to the idea Boris is done. He won't make the 100, though it will be close. But I can't see a billionaire with a non-dom wife pushing through tax cuts and spending cuts in the teeth of falling wages and strikes, being a calm couple of years with a newly united, functioning Tory Party marching behind in lock step. 1% chance of that. Far too many aren't with the programme before the pain has even started.
Not getting on the ballot is better for the “Boris Myth” - stabbed in the back - by his own MPs - Denied a second chance to rescue the country, again, by his own MPs - Could have saved the Tory party from the electoral bloodbath of 2024
Of course it’s total rubbish - but when has Johnson ever let the truth get in the way of “a good story” (sic).
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.
What's the form of the nomination, do you know? Is it a list of names and signatures submitted to Brady?
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the
current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
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!
Nice idea, but it would have provoked a legal challenge as failing in his duty to provide a choice to the membership.
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
It is part of their party name, so it is as correct to capitalise it as it is to capitalise Labour or Conservative, or Labourite, etc.
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!
Nice idea, but it would have provoked a legal challenge as failing in his duty to provide a choice to the membership.
Should have set it at one third, where did they get 100 from?
If Johnson, Sunak and Mordaunt all reach 100 then there is a vote of Tory MPs to establish the final two AIUI.
How is that vote conducted? Is it secret? Do they just vote for their choice or do they give a second choice?
If Boris just crawls over the 100 line, then as I have said repeatedly, if he has enough to lend to Penny, Rishi should indeed lend enough to put Penny over the line. Easier to manipulate that vote to exclude Boris from the final 2 than to risk a straight Rishi v Boris members vote that Rishi may well lose.
Obs, the deal is then that Penny drops out for a immediate Rishi coronation.
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the
current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
'The Scottish Nationalist Party' for which it is short *is* a proper noun though.
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.
But it doesn’t mean 50+ MPs need to swallow it all, hook, line and sinker
For those with little ability or talent, Boris is their only hope of patronage and gravy.
For those who might survive the coming Tory apocalypse, they hope that Boris will boost their chances.
There are enough people who will benefit from Boris and I would not put it past him to nobble the Committee in some way. He already tried prorouging Parliament and a few other dodgy manoeuvers.
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.
But that was when up against Truss.Had the other contender been Johnson , I suspect his vote share would have been nearer 35%.
If Johnson, Sunak and Mordaunt all reach 100 then there is a vote of Tory MPs to establish the final two AIUI.
How is that vote conducted? Is it secret? Do they just vote for their choice or do they give a second choice?
Edit: even if there are only two candidates over 100 then there is a indicative vote - is this a secret ballot? If so, some who pledge support to one may vote in secret for the other.
It's conducted the same way the votes were conducted previously this year and in previous years. A secret ballot of Tory MPs. No second choices. The indicative vote is also secret.
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
It is part of their party
name, so it is as correct to capitalise it as it is to capitalise Labour or Conservative, or Labourite,
etc.
Nope, it’s the Scottish National Party and you were talking about people who supported independence for Scotland, not the party - at least that was the clear implication from your post
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the
current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
'The Scottish Nationalist Party' for which it is short *is* a proper noun though.
SNP is the Scottish National Party not the Scottish Nationalist Party.
Tom Peck @tompeck · 1h I told him to resign for the good of the country. He did resign. And then, while he flew a fighter jet then went on three holidays in as many weeks, I realised what a great guy he really was.
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.
And of course, with Johnson, not only do you have the shit storm still coming down the line for all the things he has (or hasn't) done, but you have the shit storm coming within the first week of Parliament when he lies to Parliament and decides to accuse Starmer of being a child murderer or something on the floor of the House.
The first two days of his new Premiership would be a sight.....
Hoyle - "I'd like to welcome the new.... Prime Minister to his post, but I see Steve Baker is trying to catch my eye.... I call Steven Baker."
Baker - "Thank you Mr. Speaker. 112 MPs and myself from this party can't serve under that man. We're off, but before I cross the floor to sit as an independent, can I ask the Right Honourable Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to lay down a VoNC. I and my fellow 112 MPs will be voting with him on this one."
Comedy........
I doubt it would happen, but it would be a wonderful spectacle if it did. It would also have the benefit of getting the GE done.
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the
current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
'The Scottish Nationalist Party' for which it is short *is* a proper noun though.
If Boris 2.0 has learnt from an extensive back catalogue of errors, he still has the potential to be a damn fine PM, to still be PM into the 2030s.
Honestly, what's the point of even writing this?
Johnson is not going to inwardly reflect, acheive moksha and be reborn with self-realisation as a better person. He's going to be exactly the same.
Clive James wrote about how he met Susannah York when she was 23. She was so beautiful that he just burst into tears. That's the exact emotion I'm going to experience if Johnson comes back and destroys the tory party.
Those are silly comparisons (with the possible exception of 2017 to make a point about Corbyn). Just because we think he’s a bad choice of PM doesn’t mean we should throw away all critical faculties.
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.
Which is why extrapolating the final nominations from those we already know is flawed. It assumes every MP decides to nominate someone, 30 or 40 may not.
That's excellent - spot on - Portillo nails the current situation.
Although Portillo has been sidelined ever since he put phones lines in but didn't pull the trigger. No doubt Boris will wonder about that sort of thing too.
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.
But it doesn’t mean 50+ MPs need to swallow it all, hook, line and sinker
For those with little ability or talent, Boris is their only hope of patronage and gravy.
For those who might survive the coming Tory apocalypse, they hope that Boris will boost their chances.
There are enough people who will benefit from Boris and I would not put it past him to nobble the Committee in some way. He already tried prorouging Parliament and a few other dodgy manoeuvers.
Yes, somewhere on that long long list of important things that are trashed by having a person like Johnson in power is the quality of people in government jobs. Only creeps and cretins need apply.
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
It is part of their party
name, so it is as correct to capitalise it as it is to capitalise Labour or Conservative, or Labourite,
etc.
Nope, it’s the Scottish National Party and you were talking about people who supported independence for Scotland, not the party - at least that was the clear implication from your post
You wouldn't say "Scottish Nationals" though would you? You say "Scottish Nationalists".
I don't see why this is such a bone of contention.
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.
Quite high it would seem, definitely some movement towards them. But doesn't convert to many seats.
Alba on 1% in the regional VI for Holyrood.
We will see the reality though it does seem Sturgeon is so bitter and twisted and desperate to stay troughing that she would rather see unionists win seats than work with real independence parties. People are morons if they think Labour have changed their colours.
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.
I can't resort to calling the whole Party 'filth.' There are good Conservatives
It’s a weakness of some on the Left (and on the right too). As long as you believe your opponents are bad people “Never kissed a Tory” etc. then you are blind to their true failing which is the pursuit of bad ideas.
Now some politicians are bad people - you just have to look at the sex and bullying scandals (unless you’re the SNP), but in general most are motivated by wanting to help their constituents, and it’s their ideas which should be critiqued.
As Mrs T said I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
Yes but the 43.6% voteshare Boris got in 2019 was also more than Cameron or May got and indeed the highest Conservative voteshare since the 43.9% Thatcher got in 1979.
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the
current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
'The Scottish Nationalist Party' for which it is short *is* a proper noun though.
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
It is part of their party
name, so it is as correct to capitalise it as it is to capitalise Labour or Conservative, or Labourite,
etc.
Nope, it’s the Scottish National Party and you were talking about people who supported independence for Scotland, not the party - at least that was the clear implication from your post
You wouldn't say "Scottish Nationals" though would you? You say "Scottish Nationalists".
I don't see why this is such a bone of contention.
I'm guessing a couple of people are bored this morning?
I don't know why. This T20 is not going according to script. Could be quite funny.
Edit - and as I say that, Hardik Pandya whacks a four.
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!
Nice idea, but it would have provoked a legal challenge as failing in his duty to provide a choice to the membership.
Should have set it at one third, where did they get 100 from?
I suspect because it didn't look so much of an attempt to fix the outcome....
OT I was at the Formula Ford festival yesterday mainly watching from just passed Paddock Hill bend, because I was with a team and spent quite a bit of time in the paddock. The team had 2 cars running. The son of the owners was one of the drivers. He collided with another car just after the bend and went off harmlessly and rejoined. Later in another heat someone else wasn't as lucky. I would have thought it impossible to survive the crash, but the driver walked away. There was nothing left of the car when the recovery truck passed us. How he walked away I have no idea. It was sickening.
I was watching the faces of the parents. Don't let your sons and daughters race cars. It is not worth it.
On a lighter note I know the sponsor of a rally car. They were told that C4 was covering a rally and would be using a helicopter so they put a great big logo on the roof. The car got a huge amount of coverage from the helicopter. However he didn't have the foresight to put a logo on the underside of the car.
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.
Thanks. On that basis is sounds likely that Guido's anonymous backers will be able to nominate, in which case the numbers of public backers are not very relevant.
I'm still not sure why a quarter of his backers would still be so shy at this late hour, though - even under the cloak of anonymity.
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
It is part of their party
name, so it is as correct to capitalise it as it is to capitalise Labour or Conservative, or Labourite,
etc.
Nope, it’s the Scottish National Party and you were talking about people who supported independence for Scotland, not the party - at least that was the clear implication from your post
You wouldn't say "Scottish Nationals" though would you? You say "Scottish
Nationalists".
I don't see why this is such a bone of contention.
Because you were talking about the viewpoint not the party. Quite obviously wrong really!
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?
Never had anything but that. We can be reasonably confident a third of MPs are loyal to him, just a question of if all will decide to nominate, at which point there's nothing to dissuade him from trying his luck with the members.
Sunaks pitch is the members made a mistake last time. People don't like hearing that.
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the
current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
'The Scottish Nationalist Party' for which it is short *is* a proper noun though.
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the
current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
'The Scottish Nationalist Party' for which it is short *is* a proper noun though.
Shocking ignorance on a politics site
Well, we all know your view that they're not nationalists...
That's excellent - spot on - Portillo nails the current situation.
I think that his confidence that Boris would win the members is slightly misplaced, that is not a given. But be afraid, yes, certainly.
If Boris wins we likely go to a snap general election before Christmas, enough Tory Rishi backers would make a sustainable Boris premiership impossible and many would vote with the Opposition for an election.
Only Rishi has enough support amongst Tory MPs to sustain a government for a year or 2 until the next general election
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
It is part of their party
name, so it is as correct to capitalise it as it is to capitalise Labour or Conservative, or Labourite,
etc.
Nope, it’s the Scottish National Party and you were talking about people who supported independence for Scotland, not the party - at least that was the clear implication from your post
You wouldn't say "Scottish Nationals" though would you? You say "Scottish Nationalists".
I don't see why this is such a bone of contention.
Because you were talking about the viewpoint not the party. Quite obviously wrong really!
I was talking about the viewpoint of supporters of that party, just as people talk about Labourites, etc.
Don't know why your text editor is suddenly inserting lots of line breaks, but it seems to have gone quite mad for them.
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
They are pretending to believe this time will be different, forgetting he claimed to have learned his lessons before too. Will the members delude themselves similarly?
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
It is part of their party
name, so it is as correct to capitalise it as it is to capitalise Labour or Conservative, or Labourite,
etc.
Nope, it’s the Scottish National Party and you were talking about people who supported independence for Scotland, not the party - at least that was the clear implication from your post
You wouldn't say "Scottish Nationals" though would you? You say "Scottish Nationalists".
I don't see why this is such a bone of contention.
Because it has F all to do with the political party and you made a right tit of yourself by not even knowing the party name , getting it totally wrong and then conflating it with Independence supporters.
That's excellent - spot on - Portillo nails the current situation.
I think that his confidence that Boris would win the members is slightly misplaced, that is not a given. But be afraid, yes, certainly.
If Boris wins we likely go to a snap general election before Christmas, enough Tory Rishi backers would make a sustainable Boris premiership impossible and many would vote with the Opposition for an election.
Only Rishi has enough support amongst Tory MPs to sustain a government for a year or 2 until the next general election
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.
And of course, with Johnson, not only do you have the shit storm still coming down the line for all the things he has (or hasn't) done, but you have the shit storm coming within the first week of Parliament when he lies to Parliament and decides to accuse Starmer of being a child murderer or something on the floor of the House.
The first two days of his new Premiership would be a sight.....
Hoyle - "I'd like to welcome the new.... Prime Minister to his post, but I see Steve Baker is trying to catch my eye.... I call Steven Baker."
Baker - "Thank you Mr. Speaker. 112 MPs and myself from this party can't serve under that man. We're off, but before I cross the floor to sit as an independent, can I ask the Right Honourable Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to lay down a VoNC. I and my fellow 112 MPs will be voting with him on this one."
Comedy........
No more than a handful will quit. Theyll just mope.
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
It is part of their party
name, so it is as correct to capitalise it as it is to capitalise Labour or Conservative, or Labourite,
etc.
Nope, it’s the Scottish National Party and you were talking about people who supported independence for Scotland, not the party - at least that was the clear implication from your post
You wouldn't say "Scottish Nationals" though would you? You say "Scottish Nationalists".
I don't see why this is such a bone of contention.
Because it has F all to do with the political party and you made a right tit of yourself by not even knowing the party name , getting it totally wrong and then conflating it with Independence supporters.
I know perfectly well what the name of the SNP is.
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the
current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
'The Scottish Nationalist Party' for which it is short *is* a proper noun though.
Shocking ignorance on a politics site
Well, we all know your view that they're not nationalists...
Trying to hide schoolboy errors , not surprising the knowledge on Scotland is still totally lacking on here despite all the Scotch experts.
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.
I can't resort to calling the whole Party 'filth.' There are good Conservatives
It’s a weakness of some on the Left (and on the right too). As long as you believe your opponents are bad people “Never kissed a Tory” etc. then you are blind to their true failing which is the pursuit of bad ideas.
Now some politicians are bad people - you just have to look at the sex and bullying scandals (unless you’re the SNP), but in general most are motivated by wanting to help their constituents, and it’s their ideas which should be critiqued.
As Mrs T said I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
Excellent post.
I’ve made the same point before, but you put it across better than me.
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
It is part of their party
name, so it is as correct to capitalise it as it is to capitalise Labour or Conservative, or Labourite,
etc.
Nope, it’s the Scottish National Party and you were talking about people who supported independence for Scotland, not the party - at least that was the clear implication from your post
You wouldn't say "Scottish Nationals" though would you? You say "Scottish Nationalists".
I don't see why this is such a bone of contention.
Because you were talking about the viewpoint not the party. Quite obviously wrong really!
I was talking about the viewpoint of supporters of that party, just as people talk about
Labourites, etc.
Don't know why your text editor is suddenly inserting lots of line breaks, but it seems to have gone quite mad for them.
It’s the only way to reply on vanilla at times - adding breaks in the OP
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
It is part of their party
name, so it is as correct to capitalise it as it is to capitalise Labour or Conservative, or Labourite,
etc.
Nope, it’s the Scottish National Party and you were talking about people who supported independence for Scotland, not the party - at least that was the clear implication from your post
You wouldn't say "Scottish Nationals" though would you? You say "Scottish Nationalists".
I don't see why this is such a bone of contention.
Because it has F all to do with the political party and you made a right tit of yourself by not even knowing the party name , getting it totally wrong and then conflating it with Independence supporters.
I know perfectly well what the name of the SNP is.
To be fair, I didn't. I thought it was 'Scottish Nationalist' because that's what everyone calls them, even though it's apparently not their official name.
I think it's irrelevant though. People call Plaid Cymru 'Nationalists' and that isn't even remotely part of their name (or for the matter of that their policy offering)!
That's excellent - spot on - Portillo nails the current situation.
I think that his confidence that Boris would win the members is slightly misplaced, that is not a given. But be afraid, yes, certainly.
If Boris wins we likely go to a snap general election before Christmas, enough Tory Rishi backers would make a sustainable Boris premiership impossible and many would vote with the Opposition for an election.
Only Rishi has enough support amongst Tory MPs to sustain a government for a year or 2 until the next general election
Why MPs cannot figure out you need MP support is baffling to me.
Not much movement for Boris, still stuck on under 60 declarations of support. Rishi now over 130. I don't see where Boris picks up the 45 additional votes now that high profile right wingers have backed Rishi. Kemi's piece today was devastating for Boris and once again shows that she is a future PM, clear and consistent.
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
They are pretending to believe this time will be different, forgetting he claimed to have learned his lessons before too. Will the members delude themselves similarly?
You’re all missing the point that there is a point of view which says “he has no lessons to learn”.
I freely admit to having an element of this myself in that I found him an incredibly useful shyster in 2016 and 2019 when he got Brexit over the line. Some will have a stronger sense of that, and think “I don’t care what he’s like if he delivers the things I want and like”.
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the
current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
'The Scottish Nationalist Party' for which it is short *is* a proper noun though.
Shocking ignorance on a politics site
Well, we all know your view that they're not nationalists...
Trying to hide schoolboy errors , not surprising the knowledge on Scotland is still totally lacking on here despite all the Scotch experts.
I've always thought of you and one or two other Scottish posters (Stuart Dickson) as more whine experts.
That's excellent - spot on - Portillo nails the current situation.
I think that his confidence that Boris would win the members is slightly misplaced, that is not a given. But be afraid, yes, certainly.
If Boris wins we likely go to a snap general election before Christmas, enough Tory Rishi backers would make a sustainable Boris premiership impossible and many would vote with the Opposition for an election.
Only Rishi has enough support amongst Tory MPs to sustain a government for a year or 2 until the next general election
I think Portillo is certainly right about the cabinet. It had fallen apart before he quit and I don't see humpty dumpty managing to put it together again.
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.
And of course, with Johnson, not only do you have the shit storm still coming down the line for all the things he has (or hasn't) done, but you have the shit storm coming within the first week of Parliament when he lies to Parliament and decides to accuse Starmer of being a child murderer or something on the floor of the House.
The first two days of his new Premiership would be a sight.....
Hoyle - "I'd like to welcome the new.... Prime Minister to his post, but I see Steve Baker is trying to catch my eye.... I call Steven Baker."
Baker - "Thank you Mr. Speaker. 112 MPs and myself from this party can't serve under that man. We're off, but before I cross the floor to sit as an independent, can I ask the Right Honourable Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to lay down a VoNC. I and my fellow 112 MPs will be voting with him on this one."
Comedy........
could Truss tell HMK that Johnson should be invited to form a government if that looked clear?
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!
Nice idea, but it would have provoked a legal challenge as failing in his duty to provide a choice to the membership.
Should have set it at one third, where did they get 100 from?
I suspect because it didn't look so much of an attempt to fix the outcome....
Yes, they wanted to cut members out without formally doing so. But that left a gap big enough for Boris to slither through
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.
I agree. I am tending to the idea Boris is done. He won't make the 100, though it will be close. But I can't see a billionaire with a non-dom wife pushing through tax cuts and spending cuts in the teeth of falling wages and strikes, being a calm couple of years with a newly united, functioning Tory Party marching behind in lock step.
1% chance of that. Far too many aren't with the programme before the pain has even started.
You have hit the nail on the head here re Rishi.
Many on here - as well as the commentariat - are saying how Johnson winning the contest would split the Tory party.
But what many are missing - and I suspect because their dislike of BJ is overwhelming their rational capabilities and / or they are viewing the Tory party through their own well-off, middle class lens - is that the chances of a split are maybe even higher with Rishi as leader.
The attack lines against Rishi are already written as you note - rich, smug, non-tax paying wife, didn't declare his Green Card (how do people think that's not an issue? oh, because it's the sort of thing they might do themselves). Labour would love it. More to the point, Farage et al would point to the "Globalists" now running the Tory party.
In that scenario, it's easy to see the populist wing decide to take their chances with a new Farage-influenced movement with possibly Johnson at its head. Would they keep many seats? Probably not but the damage would be done.
There's loads of random capitalisation on the thread this morning. Why so touchy about mine?
The SNP could have called themselves simply the Scotland Pary, or the Scotland Independence Party, or a myriad of other possible names if they didn't want the word "National" to be in their party name and didn't want to be associated with the concept of Nationalism.
That's excellent - spot on - Portillo nails the current situation.
I think that his confidence that Boris would win the members is slightly misplaced, that is not a given. But be afraid, yes, certainly.
Not a given but a strong likelihood IMO. The "Boris has a mandate" point is, for them, a strong one and the indicative vote, which will be designed to steer the membership in the direction the MPs want, will prove to be counter-productive as the membership will not want to be preached to.
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
It is part of their party
name, so it is as correct to capitalise it as it is to capitalise Labour or Conservative, or Labourite,
etc.
Nope, it’s the Scottish National Party and you were talking about people who supported independence for Scotland, not the party - at least that was the clear implication from your post
You wouldn't say "Scottish Nationals" though would you? You say "Scottish Nationalists".
I don't see why this is such a bone of contention.
Because it has F all to do with the political party and you made a right tit of yourself by not even knowing the party name , getting it totally wrong and then conflating it with Independence supporters.
I know perfectly well what the name of the SNP is.
To be fair, I didn't. I thought it was 'Scottish Nationalist' because that's what everyone calls them, even though it's apparently not their official name.
I think it's irrelevant though. People call Plaid Cymru 'Nationalists' and that isn't even remotely part of their name (or for the matter of that their policy offering)!
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
It is part of their party
name, so it is as correct to capitalise it as it is to capitalise Labour or Conservative, or Labourite,
etc.
Nope, it’s the Scottish National Party and you were talking about people who supported independence for Scotland, not the party - at least that was the clear implication from your post
You wouldn't say "Scottish Nationals" though would you? You say "Scottish Nationalists".
I don't see why this is such a bone of contention.
Because it has F all to do with the political party and you made a right tit of yourself by not even knowing the party name , getting it totally wrong and then conflating it with Independence supporters.
I know perfectly well what the name of the SNP is.
To be fair, I didn't. I thought it was 'Scottish Nationalist' because that's what everyone calls them, even though it's apparently not their official name.
I think it's irrelevant though. People call Plaid Cymru 'Nationalists' and that isn't even remotely part of their name (or for the matter of that their policy offering)!
Stop digging Australia beckons
You'll roo the day you said that.
Edit - incidentally, on a point of punctuation, there should be a comma between 'digging' and 'Australia.'
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!
Nice idea, but it would have provoked a legal challenge as failing in his duty to provide a choice to the membership.
Should have set it at one third, where did they get 100 from?
Best guess, there were three obvious candidates, so the threshold was set at a level where it was possible but difficult for all three to qualify.
Btw whether Boris stands or not I reckon we find out via a Telegraph article in the paper tomorrow, for which he will have been well paid. Meanwhile he gets another day as the centre of attention.
If Johnson, Sunak and Mordaunt all reach 100 then there is a vote of Tory MPs to establish the final two AIUI.
How is that vote conducted? Is it secret? Do they just vote for their choice or do they give a second choice?
If Boris just crawls over the 100 line, then as I have said repeatedly, if he has enough to lend to Penny, Rishi should indeed lend enough to put Penny over the line. Easier to manipulate that vote to exclude Boris from the final 2 than to risk a straight Rishi v Boris members vote that Rishi may well lose.
Obs, the deal is then that Penny drops out for a immediate Rishi coronation.
If Sunak has twice as many as Johnson, I bet this is already being spreadsheeted. Whether they have the intelligence (in both senses) to pull it off is another matter. The counter-strategy is a huge MP endorsement for Sunak giving him the best chance with the members
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
It is part of their party
name, so it is as correct to capitalise it as it is to capitalise Labour or Conservative, or Labourite,
etc.
Nope, it’s the Scottish National Party and you were talking about people who supported independence for Scotland, not the party - at least that was the clear implication from your post
You wouldn't say "Scottish Nationals" though would you? You say "Scottish Nationalists".
I don't see why this is such a bone of contention.
Because it has F all to do with the political party and you made a right tit of yourself by not even knowing the party name , getting it totally wrong and then conflating it with Independence supporters.
I know perfectly well what the name of the SNP is.
To be fair, I didn't. I thought it was 'Scottish Nationalist' because that's what everyone calls them, even though it's apparently not their official name.
I think it's irrelevant though. People call Plaid Cymru 'Nationalists' and that isn't even remotely part of their name (or for the matter of that their policy offering)!
It is only their name in the minds of jingoists. The Tories are called arseholes but no-one calls tehm the arsehole Conservative party.
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.
I agree. I am tending to the idea Boris is done. He won't make the 100, though it will be close. But I can't see a billionaire with a non-dom wife pushing through tax cuts and spending cuts in the teeth of falling wages and strikes, being a calm couple of years with a newly united, functioning Tory Party marching behind in lock step.
1% chance of that. Far too many aren't with the programme before the pain has even started.
You have hit the nail on the head here re Rishi.
Many on here - as well as the commentariat - are saying how Johnson winning the contest would split the Tory party.
But what many are missing - and I suspect because their dislike of BJ is overwhelming their rational capabilities and / or they are viewing the Tory party through their own well-off, middle class lens - is that the chances of a split are maybe even higher with Rishi as leader.
The attack lines against Rishi are already written as you note - rich, smug, non-tax paying wife, didn't declare his Green Card (how do people think that's not an issue? oh, because it's the sort of thing they might do themselves). Labour would love it. More to the point, Farage et al would point to the "Globalists" now running the Tory party.
In that scenario, it's easy to see the populist wing decide to take their chances with a new Farage-influenced movement with possibly Johnson at its head. Would they keep many seats? Probably not but the damage would be done.
Why would Johnson head off to form a new movement with Farage under FPTP which would likely still win fewer seats than Rishi's Conservative Party, when if Rishi loses the next general election but saves the furniture, Johnson could run again to be Leader of the Opposition to PM Starmer?
PR makes a Johnson led party and Corbyn led party split from the Tories and Labour possible as both would win seats. FPTP doesn't
There's loads of random capitalisation on the thread this morning. Why so touchy about mine?
The SNP could have called themselves simply the Scotland Pary, or the Scotland Independence Party, or a myriad of other possible names if they didn't want the word "National" to be in their party name and didn't want to be associated with the concept of Nationalism.
It wasn’t that big a deal, but you made it one by trying to cover up your error. It’s always the cover up that gets you!
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?
I make no judgement in that comment whether the ScotNats are right (the capitalisation seems fairly standard to me), but I'm playing with the idea of it being a framework with which to think about the political divisions in Britain today.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the current stalemate.
Nationalist is not a proper noun therefore you are wrong to capitalise it.
It is part of their party
name, so it is as correct to capitalise it as it is to capitalise Labour or Conservative, or Labourite,
etc.
Nope, it’s the Scottish National Party and you were talking about people who supported independence for Scotland, not the party - at least that was the clear implication from your post
You wouldn't say "Scottish Nationals" though would you? You say "Scottish Nationalists".
I don't see why this is such a bone of contention.
Because it has F all to do with the political party and you made a right tit of yourself by not even knowing the party name , getting it totally wrong and then conflating it with Independence supporters.
I know perfectly well what the name of the SNP is.
To be fair, I didn't. I thought it was 'Scottish Nationalist' because that's what everyone calls them, even though it's apparently not their official name.
I think it's irrelevant though. People call Plaid Cymru 'Nationalists' and that isn't even remotely part of their name (or for the matter of that their policy offering)!
it's just a little bit of disrespectful, but also lots of history you may not be aware of due to the way Scottish Labour have always deliberately used the incorrect name to needle the SNP.
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?
Never had anything but that. We can be reasonably confident a third of MPs are loyal to him, just a question of if all will decide to nominate, at which point there's nothing to dissuade him from trying his luck with the members.
Sunaks pitch is the members made a mistake last time. People don't like hearing that.
They may not like hearing it, but with the party now 30%+ behind in all the polls, it is open to no other interpretation. They bought a pig in a poke. Given the chance, they will buy another.
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.
Thanks. On that basis is sounds likely that Guido's anonymous backers will be able to nominate, in which case the numbers of public backers are not very relevant.
I'm still not sure why a quarter of his backers would still be so shy at this late hour, though - even under the cloak of anonymity.
Being required to stay anonymous but all running off to tell a private sector charlatan like Staines isn't very wise, even if it is true.
Comments
How do you convince and MP to be the 100 or 101st nomination if the suggestion is you'll drop out anyway?
Sounding a bit like Hitler in the bunker......
https://twitter.com/MulberryCoates/status/1584116278150602752
I am tending to the idea Boris is done. He won't make the 100, though it will be close.
But I can't see a billionaire with a non-dom wife pushing through tax cuts and spending cuts in the teeth of falling wages and strikes, being a calm couple of years with a newly united, functioning Tory Party marching behind in lock step.
1% chance of that. Far too many aren't with the programme before the pain has even started.
We need decency back in politics, which probably means finding the centre and when we don't agree not slurring our opponents in the process.
(None of the things which Boris Johnson represents)
1. Conservative members think they should be cut out of the process and MPs should decide. But also:
2. Conservative members want Boris.
A clear scenario in which Johnson becomes PM on the back of the members' vote alone, in a process members didnt support. https://twitter.com/mattholehouse/status/1584122691468296192/photo/1
Alba on 1% in the regional VI for Holyrood.
It will give me some clarity that I can no longer ever count myself as a supporter of the Tory Party. With Rishi there is a chance of some redemption in time, though I will be voting Starmer at the next election. Boris would leave me and I am sure many other centre-right leaning voters politically homeless.
I don’t have much fear from Boris 2.0 if it happens, because he will destroy the party and an imminent GE is pretty much a certainty, which he will lose.
Arguably the age division is the source of the divide in Scotland too, just that it has expressed itself slightly differently to England. The latest YouGov had the SNP lead Labour 45-31 overall, but behind 34-36 among over-65s.
Resolving the age divide across Britain might resolve the question of Scottish independence, one way or another, much more clearly than the current stalemate.
The first two days of his new Premiership would be a sight.....
Hoyle - "I'd like to welcome the new.... Prime Minister to his post, but I see Steve Baker is trying to catch my eye.... I call Steven Baker."
Baker - "Thank you Mr. Speaker. 112 MPs and myself from this party can't serve under that man. We're off, but before I cross the floor to sit as an independent, can I ask the Right Honourable Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to lay down a VoNC. I and my fellow 112 MPs will be voting with him on this one."
Comedy........
How is that vote conducted? Is it secret? Do they just vote for their choice or do they give a second choice?
Edit: even if there are only two candidates over 100 then there is a indicative vote - is this a secret ballot? If so, some who pledge support to one may vote in secret for the other.
If my reading of ConHome is correct, the psyche from the members posting there is definitely not that, quite the opposite.
Having said that though, an announcement tomorrow of Boris 120 Sunak 190 will have a “Uh oh” feel about it.
On topic. Completely agree with TSE - another example for your list is the Truss v Starmer polling was good for Tories, just days and hours before the Starmergasm.
- stabbed in the back - by his own MPs
- Denied a second chance to rescue the country, again, by his own MPs
- Could have saved the Tory party from the electoral bloodbath of 2024
Of course it’s total rubbish - but when has Johnson ever let the truth get in the way of “a good story” (sic).
Obs, the deal is then that Penny drops out for a immediate Rishi coronation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQFqp_WyTw4
For those who might survive the coming Tory apocalypse, they hope that Boris will boost their chances.
There are enough people who will benefit from Boris and I would not put it past him to nobble the Committee in some way. He already tried prorouging Parliament and a few other dodgy manoeuvers.
@tompeck
·
1h
I told him to resign for the good of the country. He did resign. And then, while he flew a fighter jet then went on three holidays in as many weeks, I realised what a great guy he really was.
Just off the charts stuff.
Johnson is not going to inwardly reflect, acheive moksha and be reborn with self-realisation as a better person. He's going to be exactly the same.
Clive James wrote about how he met Susannah York when she was 23. She was so beautiful that he just burst into tears. That's the exact emotion I'm going to experience if Johnson comes back and destroys the tory party.
Cameron took Tories from 198 to 330 (gain of 132)
Johnson went from 317 to 365 (gain of 48)
So the great election-winning machine, the Heineken politician, made ONE THIRD of the gains of Cameron
While you’re here…
In 2017 May took Tories from 36.8% to 42.3%, a rise of 5.5 percentage points
In 2019 Johnson took Tories from 42.3% to 43.6%, a rise 1.2 percentage points
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1584115016596623363
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1584135047975956485
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/rishi-sunak-announces-he-is-standing-for-tory-leader-and-prime-minister_uk_63550a31e4b04cf8f38482d1
I don't see why this is such a bone of contention.
Now some politicians are bad people - you just have to look at the sex and bullying scandals (unless you’re the SNP), but in general most are motivated by wanting to help their constituents, and it’s their ideas which should be critiqued.
As Mrs T said I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
I don't know why. This T20 is not going according to script. Could be quite funny.
Edit - and as I say that, Hardik Pandya whacks a four.
I was watching the faces of the parents. Don't let your sons and daughters race cars. It is not worth it.
On a lighter note I know the sponsor of a rally car. They were told that C4 was covering a rally and would be using a helicopter so they put a great big logo on the roof. The car got a huge amount of coverage from the helicopter. However he didn't have the foresight to put a logo on the underside of the car.
I'm still not sure why a quarter of his backers would still be so shy at this late hour, though - even under the cloak of anonymity.
Sunaks pitch is the members made a mistake last time. People don't like hearing that.
Only Rishi has enough support amongst Tory MPs to sustain a government for a year or 2 until the next general election
Don't know why your text editor is suddenly inserting lots of line breaks, but it seems to have gone quite mad for them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/60118526
I’ve made the same point before, but you put it across better than me.
I think it's irrelevant though. People call Plaid Cymru 'Nationalists' and that isn't even remotely part of their name (or for the matter of that their policy offering)!
I freely admit to having an element of this myself in that I found him an incredibly useful shyster in 2016 and 2019 when he got Brexit over the line. Some will have a stronger sense of that, and think “I don’t care what he’s like if he delivers the things I want and like”.
... BOOM
Full on party split, i think.
https://twitter.com/Ed_Dorrell/status/1584133965266694145
Many on here - as well as the commentariat - are saying how Johnson winning the contest would split the Tory party.
But what many are missing - and I suspect because their dislike of BJ is overwhelming their rational capabilities and / or they are viewing the Tory party through their own well-off, middle class lens - is that the chances of a split are maybe even higher with Rishi as leader.
The attack lines against Rishi are already written as you note - rich, smug, non-tax paying wife, didn't declare his Green Card (how do people think that's not an issue? oh, because it's the sort of thing they might do themselves). Labour would love it. More to the point, Farage et al would point to the "Globalists" now running the Tory party.
In that scenario, it's easy to see the populist wing decide to take their chances with a new Farage-influenced movement with possibly Johnson at its head. Would they keep many seats? Probably not but the damage would be done.
The SNP could have called themselves simply the Scotland Pary, or the Scotland Independence Party, or a myriad of other possible names if they didn't want the word "National" to be in their party name and didn't want to be associated with the concept of Nationalism.
Edit - incidentally, on a point of punctuation, there should be a comma between 'digging' and 'Australia.'
PR makes a Johnson led party and Corbyn led party split from the Tories and Labour possible as both would win seats. FPTP doesn't
The problem with saying that "Brexit is done" is nobody knew where the "line" was, so now they are fighting about whether we are over it...
Braverman wants less immigration, cos Brexit.
Truss wants more immigration, cos Brexit.
However he's heard nothing back from Johnson despite contacting him multiple times
Sounds like animosity from the 2019 Tory leadership campaign still runs very deep
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1584139683298430976
If BoZo wins, presumably Hunt is no longer Chancellor and the markets crash all over again