There’s a problem with this claim. As I understand it, the nominations have to go from MPs to Sir Graham Brady directly, not via campaigns. They remain anonymous. So nobody but him will know Johnson has 100 for sure - even if 100 had publicly declared, which they still haven’t.
OK, hands up, who started another argument over Scotland?
Meanwhile, the Graun carries a piece by ex-Labour MP Chris Mullin arguing the case for higher taxes to avoid public spending cuts. Fair enough, but his chosen remedy? Hike income tax. Christ, more shellacking of earnings whilst assets go untouched. And it's probably the sort of thing that Reeves will end up doing, because the grey vote will throw an epic tantrum if she touches property. I despair.
Pleese sir, pleese sir, it was HYUFD began it. He sa that Mr Sunak being more popular than Mr Johnson in Scotland is a deeply meaningful and useful statement suitable for an intelligent website like this one.
I should imagine that bubonic plague and a nuclear holocaust would both be at least slightly more popular in Scotland than Boris Johnson, so granted it's a pretty low bar.
HY hasn't been calling for tanks to be brought in to shell Edinburgh again, has he?
Not in those words, but he was getting quite excited at the though of arresting Ms Sturgeon for sedition a little earlier.
I was saying what would happen if Scotland was actually a colony, which it isn't
Have a look at the legislation. All devolution is subject to resumption by UKG at the latter's wish. That *is* effectively a colony.
You’re a serious poster, but this is not a serious definition of “colony”.
When a foreign country decides what you are allowed to do or not do and how and when you are allowed to vote and what you can vote on, that is a de facto colony.
You have exactly the same rights and privileges as we do.
The objection essentially boils down to the fact Scotland has a much smaller population than England, so is subject to getting outvoted more often than not.
If Scotland had, say, a population of 35 million and we had identical constitutional arrangements then the problem wouldn't arise.
No we don't , we have under 10% of teh population of England and can never ever win any vote at any time. It is a de facto colony. If every person in Scotland voted for something at next election it would make no difference. England decides we are too uppity and don't deserve to have a vote we are stuck with it.
A lot of things in Scotland are devolved though, surely? And the Scottish parliament has tax raising powers? Lots of choices are different in Scotland than in England because the Scots have chosen that.
If I believed there was an overwhelming majority in Scotland for independence then I’d join the campaign for a vote. But the vote would be best informed by what happened to the U.K. in 2016. No ambiguity about it. What happens to currency. National debt. Pensions. The border. Free trade or not. The army. The navy. And on and on. The Brexit mess was down to it being all things to all people. A new Independence poll should not make that mistake.
Unfortunately all the main powers remain retained, Income Tax alone is useless as if it goes up the pocket money is reduced and all the major levers of power are retained to westminster. Certainly be a lot to sort out but should not be impossible, more than 60 countries minimum have done it already so it cannot be that hard even if more complex being so close to home. No reason at all why it cannot be done with good grace and with everyones needs taken into consideration. Only unionists want to make it rancourous.
Sorry, can't let this one go unchallenged.
The Block Grant is adjusted each year by Barnett Consequentials. These are calculated by population share and proportion of spending on devolved matter (eg Defence 0%).
The Block Grant adjustment takes account of income tax raised in Scotland. It applies English rates of income tax to Scotland and withdraws this value from the Block Grant. As such, Scotland gets the difference between Scottish rates and bands of income tax and those applied in England.
You are wrong - the "pocket money" is not taken away any more than it should do to reflect the fact Scotland has its own income tax raising powers.
One thing the BGA does assume is that Scotland's earnings grow as fast as those in England. If they don't, then this will offset (to an extent) increased tax rates in Scotland. Together, this is the "net income tax position".
Another thing - only Consequentials are adjusted by population, not the entirety of the Block Grant. This means that, over the long term, we might expect per capita funding to converge with that in England (ie fall), all else held equal (the Barnett Squeeze).
However, as Scotland's population share of the UK pop falls, we enjoy more funding per capita, counteracting this effect. I haven't come up with a name for this yet. Considering "the malcolmg no shagging bonus".
Any Oaf backers out there? He’s now drifted to 6.4.
All over bar the shouting?
Impossible to say because he may have private, though reliable, pledges from 30 or so MPs.
Why wouldn't he declare them to show he's got the 100 nominations, build momentum, formally launch his campaign and put pressure on others?
There were 126 outstanding MPs left to declare this morning. I think we're now down to 100 left. Of the 20 x big names I highlighted an interest in at 6.53am this morning we now have the following answers:
Suella Braverman - SUNAK Kwasi Kwarteng - TBC Nadhim Zahawi - JOHNSON Michael Gove - TBC Steve Baker - SUNAK Geoffrey Cox - SUNAK Therese Coffey - TBC Jake Berry - TBC Chloe Smith - SUNAK Ranil Jayawardena - TBC Michelle Donelan - SUNAK Vicky Ford - TBC Jackie Doyle-Price - TBC Nus Ghani - SUNAK Kit Malthouse - TBC Julia Lopez - TBC Alister Jack - TBC Mims Davies - TBC Neil O'Brien - SUNAK Liz Truss - TBC
I thought up to 10 of them might go Boris. As it stands I think the only ones left for him in that list who might declare are Jake Berry, Ranil Jayawardena, Alister Jack, Therese Coffey, Liz Truss (who'll never declare) and Kwasi. I was umming and erring about Vicky Ford and Jackie Doyle-Price but I doubt they'll plump for him now.
So he might get seven more. Max.
Guido was clear that the Boris campaign wanted its backers to let Guido know. He may be lying, but if so there arent many others.
Team Boris well beyond Corbynite "we won the argument" levels of delusion at this point:
"Cat Neilan @CatNeilan Either way, Team Boris is getting increasingly punchy:
"We have the votes, Penny does not have 100 even if some are lent to her. Boris is well ahead on membership. No idea what Rishi wants to do. I presume hang around for a few months, realise it is over and head to California.""
Given the pressure from the loonies out in the Tory local parties, if there is any misjudgement in the figures isn’t it most likely to be from an MP who has told all and sundry that he’s nominating the clown, but in fact hasn’t?
Team Boris well beyond Corbynite "we won the argument" levels of delusion at this point:
"Cat Neilan @CatNeilan Either way, Team Boris is getting increasingly punchy:
"We have the votes, Penny does not have 100 even if some are lent to her. Boris is well ahead on membership. No idea what Rishi wants to do. I presume hang around for a few months, realise it is over and head to California.""
Slightly concerned at the number of MPs who evidently concur with this view and are rowing in behind Johnson.
Surely if they have the 100 they would give all names to Guido immediately (excluding Party Officers).
Because even if Boris is on the ballot, he wants to create a sense of momentum with members and media - if it looks as if he's scraped on at the last minute that doesn't look so good.
Major issue for the LibDems and other PR supporters if Farage wants to get out in front and be the face of it. Doesn’t make for a happy referendum campaign if you spend half the time disowning one of its supporters.
Also why we likely never have a PR referendum.
People who most want PR and would win more seats with PR
1 The LDs 2 Farage and RefUK 3 The Greens
People who would lose most seats under PR at present
1 Labour 2 The SNP 3 The Conservatives (assuming they get back to 30%+ with Boris or Rishi)
Sadly true, but morally wrong. Anyone could use the same argument as to why a dictator shouldn't allow elections.
Except we are not discussing whether or not we should have democracy, just what form that democracy should take. And plenty of us believe that PR - at least as far as most of the pro-parties would want it - is generally less democratic than what we have now.
Agree with your point. I am just pointing out the logical extrapolation of many. It is no coincidence as to why many who support PR do so because it benefits them and many oppose it for the same reasons. Others however like you and me are pro or anti for logical unbiased reason.
Re the specifics on pro or anti I am strongly opposed to lists even if PR. How do you feel about STV?
To be honest I am not a great fan. It is not as bad as systems based on party lists but I dislike the weakening of the link between the constituency and the MP. My preference would be for AV - but sadly that ship has sailed long ago.
If we were forced to move to another system then STV would be the worst of a bad lot. But it is still a change I would be unhappy with.
Good news - copies of "The Times Guide to the House of Commons 2019" are at long last available on Amazon!
Bad news - starting at $175!
Always used to buy it but stopped in 2010 when the price reached £50.
Am probably the last, outside of libraries, who still purchases new editions of the Almanac of American Politics. Have every one from 1st in (or rather for) 1972 to the most recent for 2022 (covering develops thru mid-2021).
Used to be a veritable bible for US political hacks and pundits. This millennium, not so much. Mostly superseded by web. Still occasionally useful in contemporary terms, and of course a rich historical trove./ Coverage and analysis of some editions (esp. early) brilliant; less so in other (esp later).
Back about ten years or so ago, Iain Dale - bookmonger & publisher before becoming media interviewer and personality - told me my that my AAPs up to that time were collectively likely worth a couple thousand bucks or thereabouts.
Note that most of my copies are a) paperback and b) used. From wide variety of sources, including 1976 edition (Jimmy who?) I got as a 1975 Christmas present.
Anyone wishing to pre-order AND pre-pay for my NEXT edition, feel free! Ho! Ho! Ho!
speaking of Almanacks I was most worried when Whitakers announced there would be no 2022 version - hope it is back
Boris (or Team Boris) has run a terrible campaign, starting with those appalling photos.
Other poor decisions include leaving Zahawi and Cleverly announcements until too late, fake claims of having 100 supporters, not having a credible position on the Standards Committee, and his silly communications this morning.
He’s a busted flush. The turd is leaving the bowl.
Rishi will have an overwhelming mandate from his colleagues. I hope he uses it to expel total whoppers and chancers like Rees-Mogg, Zahawi, Cleverly from high office.
I recognise that he will - or should want to - represent all “factions” in Cabinet but he really must limit this to people of at least moderate competence.
If I had to include ERGers I would be looking at Steve Baker and even IDS over complete twits like Braverman.
Truss's problem was not that she did not have an inclusive Cabinet, it was not putting in the work to prepare her policies. But Sunak will face a lit of pressure to do differently anyway.
Boris will have fewer to pick from anyway.
The non-inclusive cabinet was an issue though. It wasn't even factional, it was Truss's (so she thought) inner-circle with a couple of very grudging positions for her leadership rivals. It was notable, and odd that even folk like IDS weren't given roles.
I agree with this: if you want to do radical things, you need to make sure they have lots of people's fingerprints on them.
And making sure you have people from every wing of the party in your cabinet is a big part of that.
Russian lies about Ukraine allegedly planning to use a ‘dirty bomb’ are as absurd as they are dangerous. Firstly, Ukraine is a committed NPT member: we neither have any ‘dirty bombs’, nor plan to acquire any. Secondly, Russians often accuse others of what they plan themselves.
That CHH is astonishingly confident. He claims they have “verified all nominations”.
I’m not discounting it completely.
How can they verify the confirmed nominations if only Graham Brady has access to those . And why was Bozo sounding so desperate just a few hours ago but now all of a sudden they have nominations? I’m calling it bollox and a desperate attempt to get more people to back him and dissuade anymore nominations for Sunak .
Major issue for the LibDems and other PR supporters if Farage wants to get out in front and be the face of it. Doesn’t make for a happy referendum campaign if you spend half the time disowning one of its supporters.
Also why we likely never have a PR referendum.
People who most want PR and would win more seats with PR
1 The LDs 2 Farage and RefUK 3 The Greens
People who would lose most seats under PR at present
1 Labour 2 The SNP 3 The Conservatives (assuming they get back to 30%+ with Boris or Rishi)
Sadly true, but morally wrong. Anyone could use the same argument as to why a dictator shouldn't allow elections.
Except we are not discussing whether or not we should have democracy, just what form that democracy should take. And plenty of us believe that PR - at least as far as most of the pro-parties would want it - is generally less democratic than what we have now.
Agree with your point. I am just pointing out the logical extrapolation of many. It is no coincidence as to why many who support PR do so because it benefits them and many oppose it for the same reasons. Others however like you and me are pro or anti for logical unbiased reason.
Re the specifics on pro or anti I am strongly opposed to lists even if PR. How do you feel about STV?
To be honest I am not a great fan. It is not as bad as systems based on party lists but I dislike the weakening of the link between the constituency and the MP. My preference would be for AV - but sadly that ship has sailed long ago.
If we were forced to move to another system then STV would be the worst of a bad lot. But it is still a change I would be unhappy with.
My proposal is that, instead of the party list, “Best losers” are elected to Parliament in order to deliver proportionality.
Thus, the LDs, winning 10% of the vote, but returning only 10 seats, would see another 50 odd MPs enter Parliament in order of percentage achieved.
I’m not 100% sure I prefer this to party lists, but I submit it for consideration.
But the big thing he offers- a return to realism and decency - is a very good place to start.
Johnson probably has shitloads of dirt on him though.
He’s used it already. Non-dom wife and the whole Green Card-when-Chancellor thing.
We haven’t heard enough about his support for the Great Barrington lockdown deniers, though.
If there were any evidence that Sunak opposed the disastrous lockdown that was the biggest cause of the economic mess we're now in, I'd look at him with fresh eyes. But in reality, he just splashed hundreds of billions we couldn't afford to support it.
Major issue for the LibDems and other PR supporters if Farage wants to get out in front and be the face of it. Doesn’t make for a happy referendum campaign if you spend half the time disowning one of its supporters.
Also why we likely never have a PR referendum.
People who most want PR and would win more seats with PR
1 The LDs 2 Farage and RefUK 3 The Greens
People who would lose most seats under PR at present
1 Labour 2 The SNP 3 The Conservatives (assuming they get back to 30%+ with Boris or Rishi)
Sadly true, but morally wrong. Anyone could use the same argument as to why a dictator shouldn't allow elections.
Except we are not discussing whether or not we should have democracy, just what form that democracy should take. And plenty of us believe that PR - at least as far as most of the pro-parties would want it - is generally less democratic than what we have now.
Agree with your point. I am just pointing out the logical extrapolation of many. It is no coincidence as to why many who support PR do so because it benefits them and many oppose it for the same reasons. Others however like you and me are pro or anti for logical unbiased reason.
Re the specifics on pro or anti I am strongly opposed to lists even if PR. How do you feel about STV?
To be honest I am not a great fan. It is not as bad as systems based on party lists but I dislike the weakening of the link between the constituency and the MP. My preference would be for AV - but sadly that ship has sailed long ago.
If we were forced to move to another system then STV would be the worst of a bad lot. But it is still a change I would be unhappy with.
My proposal is that, instead of the party list, “Best losers” are elected to Parliament in order to deliver proportionality.
Thus, the LDs, winning 10% of the vote, but returning only 10 seats, would see another 50 odd MPs enter Parliament in order of percentage achieved.
I’m not 100% sure I prefer this to party lists, but I submit it for consideration.
they use this system in athletics- not a bad system there of course but it would seriously weaken tactical voting as a lot more candidates woudl think they could be a good second
The Boris position looks like bluster, and this is entirely in character. With the exception of the lukewarm Wallace, his backers in the party have little weight. I'd guess he just won't get the 100 MPs and that will be the end of him. He will be either expelled from Parliament or will just 'stand down' at the next GE.
Sunak, the guy who got the CoE job because he was willing to let Dom be in charge, marks the least inspiring aspiring PM since Liz Truss
yes the tories are idiots and suicidal if they pick anyone other than Johnson here
They are idiots and suicidal if they do pick Johnson.
So I think we can basically accept that they are idiots and suicidal whatever the outcome.
Yup. The Conservatives are pretty zugzwanged here. The interesting question is how far you have to go back in time for them to make a move that doesn't end up in a BoJo - antiBoJo standoff. Getting Mordaunt on the ballot in the summer would have delayed it, but probably not prevented it.
That CHH is astonishingly confident. He claims they have “verified all nominations”.
I’m not discounting it completely.
How can they verify the confirmed nominations if only Graham Brady has access to those . And why was Bozo sounding so desperate just a few hours ago but now all of a sudden they have nominations? I’m calling it bollox and a desperate attempt to get more people to back him and dissuade anymore nominations for Sunak .
Some really astonishing comments attributed to a Bozo supporter being quoted by Dan Hodges . Sorry can’t link as on iPad .
This one?
“ Told one prominent Boris supporter is phoning MPs saying “we have to keep going. We have to kill off Rishi, and we have to kill off everyone who supports Rishi”. MP tells me, “Boris’s hard core supporters have gone mad. It’s like Waco in there”. So that’s reassuring…
Nadine Dorries and Jacob Rees Mogg are disciples of a malign culture every bit as bad as Corbynites
Such a stain on our politics. Nadine's infatuation with Johnson is just weird
Those figures are astonishingly discouraging for Labour given the recent opinion polls.
They are recognising that the UK is about to have what could be a good --> very good Conservative PM compared to those the voters have got used to. They are also recognising that Labour still has a helluva mountain to climb.
Yes, the polls have moved massively against the Tories, but if Rishi is deemed to have done a good job getting the markets soothed and people don't blame HIM for their finances being shot, it's still game on.
Plus, Labour still have to show they have an offer that is worth moving on from Rishi. Not nailed on by any means
How do we know Rishi will be better? We simply don't know that at all.
And if he's elected leader he will absolutely be blamed for anyone whose finances are shot, and with some justification, given his tenure as Chancellor for most of this Ministry and PM for the latter part of it.
The finances are shot because of the biggest pandemic in a century and the biggest European war since Hitler. The question whether is his policies are good wants to address this context or whether they add fuel to the fire.
The follow up questions are whether his approach addresses the three big long term questions facing this country: how do we address the fertility collapse, how do we restore our long term productivity weakness, and how do we prevent the worsening inequality that will undermine faith in democracy.
"The finances are shot because of the biggest pandemic in a century and the biggest European war since Hitler. " .... and Brexit.
Multiple sources now saying Johnson desperately trying to do a deal with Mourdant or Sunak for him to be Foreign Secretary as he cannot reach 100 nominations. Both have rejected him believing they don't need his support. https://twitter.com/archer_rs/status/1584196741427253248
Mordaunt has rejected him because she doesn't need his support?
Presumably because she thinks he'll chicken out and she'll then pick up a chunk of his supporters, coming a respectable second to Sunak. She won't be expecting to win, but to establish herself as a future contender, or at least as a significant figure.
Or maybe she's in as contingency on the off chance Johnson gets on the ballot. So she won't drop out until it's clear he won't be.
If he does get on the ballot the anti-Johnsons - ie the sane majority - reshuffle and get her on there too. All 3 stand. They eliminate Johnson in the MPs vote then (as agreed) she drops out.
Probably not but in any case for me the endstate - PM Sunak and no Member vote - is baked in and it's just a matter of how we get there.
Major issue for the LibDems and other PR supporters if Farage wants to get out in front and be the face of it. Doesn’t make for a happy referendum campaign if you spend half the time disowning one of its supporters.
Also why we likely never have a PR referendum.
People who most want PR and would win more seats with PR
1 The LDs 2 Farage and RefUK 3 The Greens
People who would lose most seats under PR at present
1 Labour 2 The SNP 3 The Conservatives (assuming they get back to 30%+ with Boris or Rishi)
Sadly true, but morally wrong. Anyone could use the same argument as to why a dictator shouldn't allow elections.
Except we are not discussing whether or not we should have democracy, just what form that democracy should take. And plenty of us believe that PR - at least as far as most of the pro-parties would want it - is generally less democratic than what we have now.
Agree with your point. I am just pointing out the logical extrapolation of many. It is no coincidence as to why many who support PR do so because it benefits them and many oppose it for the same reasons. Others however like you and me are pro or anti for logical unbiased reason.
Re the specifics on pro or anti I am strongly opposed to lists even if PR. How do you feel about STV?
To be honest I am not a great fan. It is not as bad as systems based on party lists but I dislike the weakening of the link between the constituency and the MP. My preference would be for AV - but sadly that ship has sailed long ago.
If we were forced to move to another system then STV would be the worst of a bad lot. But it is still a change I would be unhappy with.
There's no perfect system: all contain many, many faults. The only question, really, is which faults do you find least offensive.
My view is that we should move to small multi member wards for local councils (say 3 councilors per ward) elected by STV, and see how that works for us. If it improves governance, then we can talk about whether we'd like to do something similar with Westminster.
OK, hands up, who started another argument over Scotland?
Meanwhile, the Graun carries a piece by ex-Labour MP Chris Mullin arguing the case for higher taxes to avoid public spending cuts. Fair enough, but his chosen remedy? Hike income tax. Christ, more shellacking of earnings whilst assets go untouched. And it's probably the sort of thing that Reeves will end up doing, because the grey vote will throw an epic tantrum if she touches property. I despair.
Pleese sir, pleese sir, it was HYUFD began it. He sa that Mr Sunak being more popular than Mr Johnson in Scotland is a deeply meaningful and useful statement suitable for an intelligent website like this one.
I should imagine that bubonic plague and a nuclear holocaust would both be at least slightly more popular in Scotland than Boris Johnson, so granted it's a pretty low bar.
HY hasn't been calling for tanks to be brought in to shell Edinburgh again, has he?
Not in those words, but he was getting quite excited at the though of arresting Ms Sturgeon for sedition a little earlier.
I was saying what would happen if Scotland was actually a colony, which it isn't
Have a look at the legislation. All devolution is subject to resumption by UKG at the latter's wish. That *is* effectively a colony.
You’re a serious poster, but this is not a serious definition of “colony”.
When a foreign country decides what you are allowed to do or not do and how and when you are allowed to vote and what you can vote on, that is a de facto colony.
You have exactly the same rights and privileges as we do.
The objection essentially boils down to the fact Scotland has a much smaller population than England, so is subject to getting outvoted more often than not.
If Scotland had, say, a population of 35 million and we had identical constitutional arrangements then the problem wouldn't arise.
That is, er, not the case, given the separate legal system of Scotland. This is a key issue, which many rUK commentators completely miss.
You live in England - you will always have a say in what the legal system under which you and others live, in due proportion.
I live in Scotland - where until 1997 the vast majority of the votes for the government controlling the Scottish legal system came from outside Scotland, effectively. As was very clear when the Poll Tax was imposed on Scotland by a political party and government for it did not vote in.
And under devolution, rather than true federalisation, we could return to that system in an instant should UKG in Westminster so decide.
The devolution point is like saying the King could start vetoing laws at any moment. As for the effect of different countries, Scotland gave the marginal votes for tuition fees in England, while abolishing them for Scottish universities (except of course English students going to Scottish universities).
It was the *unionist* parties' MPs for Scottish seats (with some honourable Tory exceptions, IIRC) which voted through that decision. Which does not refute my example, as it applied to the UK as a whole, not to the Scottish legal and administrative system alone.
The differential treatment came later - but the Scots simply maintyained the same existing *residential*, not *nationality* - based system as E,. W and NI did, but which the latter three stopped doing. It takes a certain mentality to blame the Scots for doing what they were already doing. They didn't abolish anything, or impose nw charges on English students - the (in fact) rUK students were always funded by their respective areas to pay charges where they studied.
Ah I see, so Scottish votes for things don't count if they're not pro-independence. How convenient for your argument.
Boris (or Team Boris) has run a terrible campaign, starting with those appalling photos.
Other poor decisions include leaving Zahawi and Cleverly announcements until too late, fake claims of having 100 supporters, not having a credible position on the Standards Committee, and his silly communications this morning.
He’s a busted flush. The turd is leaving the bowl.
Rishi will have an overwhelming mandate from his colleagues. I hope he uses it to expel total whoppers and chancers like Rees-Mogg, Zahawi, Cleverly from high office.
I recognise that he will - or should want to - represent all “factions” in Cabinet but he really must limit this to people of at least moderate competence.
If I had to include ERGers I would be looking at Steve Baker and even IDS over complete twits like Braverman.
Truss's problem was not that she did not have an inclusive Cabinet, it was not putting in the work to prepare her policies. But Sunak will face a lit of pressure to do differently anyway.
Boris will have fewer to pick from anyway.
The non-inclusive cabinet was an issue though. It wasn't even factional, it was Truss's (so she thought) inner-circle with a couple of very grudging positions for her leadership rivals. It was notable, and odd that even folk like IDS weren't given roles.
I agree with this: if you want to do radical things, you need to make sure they have lots of people's fingerprints on them.
And making sure you have people from every wing of the party in your cabinet is a big part of that.
Concur that Lucky's point is both accurate and cogent.
One of classic strengths of cabinet government in parliamentary - and to extent presidential - systems, is practical political necessity of representation of different views AND blocs within cabinets, even when composed from just one party.
Great cabinets are notable for vigorous internal debates between strong ministers/secretaries unafraid AND capable of battling for their views AND departments. For example, Churchill's WW2 Coalition cabinet, also "Team of Rivals" during Civil War under Abraham Lincoln.
Major issue for the LibDems and other PR supporters if Farage wants to get out in front and be the face of it. Doesn’t make for a happy referendum campaign if you spend half the time disowning one of its supporters.
Also why we likely never have a PR referendum.
People who most want PR and would win more seats with PR
1 The LDs 2 Farage and RefUK 3 The Greens
People who would lose most seats under PR at present
1 Labour 2 The SNP 3 The Conservatives (assuming they get back to 30%+ with Boris or Rishi)
Sadly true, but morally wrong. Anyone could use the same argument as to why a dictator shouldn't allow elections.
Except we are not discussing whether or not we should have democracy, just what form that democracy should take. And plenty of us believe that PR - at least as far as most of the pro-parties would want it - is generally less democratic than what we have now.
Agree with your point. I am just pointing out the logical extrapolation of many. It is no coincidence as to why many who support PR do so because it benefits them and many oppose it for the same reasons. Others however like you and me are pro or anti for logical unbiased reason.
Re the specifics on pro or anti I am strongly opposed to lists even if PR. How do you feel about STV?
To be honest I am not a great fan. It is not as bad as systems based on party lists but I dislike the weakening of the link between the constituency and the MP. My preference would be for AV - but sadly that ship has sailed long ago.
If we were forced to move to another system then STV would be the worst of a bad lot. But it is still a change I would be unhappy with.
The irony in that view is that when it was debated in 1917, those opposed to STV had as a key argument that it strengthened the constituency link (by providing a choice within the party for the electors). They decried it as advantaging “the grubber,” who works his constituency.
Those figures are astonishingly discouraging for Labour given the recent opinion polls.
They are recognising that the UK is about to have what could be a good --> very good Conservative PM compared to those the voters have got used to. They are also recognising that Labour still has a helluva mountain to climb.
Yes, the polls have moved massively against the Tories, but if Rishi is deemed to have done a good job getting the markets soothed and people don't blame HIM for their finances being shot, it's still game on.
Plus, Labour still have to show they have an offer that is worth moving on from Rishi. Not nailed on by any means
You may well be correct and the Conservatives will walk the next election against what you consider to be a very weak and hapless opposition.
All I would suggest is, incumbency does not shine on relatively high mortgage rates, inflation, mortgage and car loan defaults, tax rises, service cuts and specifically a creaking NHS, oh and a year or two of industrial strife.
Now most of this is down to circumstances rather than incompetence, although Sunak has personally presided over a fair few errors, specifically during COVID. Personally I thought the furlough scheme was poorly targeted, resulting in eye- watering abuse, and "eat out to help out" was a trainwreck.
Boris (or Team Boris) has run a terrible campaign, starting with those appalling photos.
Other poor decisions include leaving Zahawi and Cleverly announcements until too late, fake claims of having 100 supporters, not having a credible position on the Standards Committee, and his silly communications this morning.
He’s a busted flush. The turd is leaving the bowl.
Rishi will have an overwhelming mandate from his colleagues. I hope he uses it to expel total whoppers and chancers like Rees-Mogg, Zahawi, Cleverly from high office.
I recognise that he will - or should want to - represent all “factions” in Cabinet but he really must limit this to people of at least moderate competence.
If I had to include ERGers I would be looking at Steve Baker and even IDS over complete twits like Braverman.
Truss's problem was not that she did not have an inclusive Cabinet, it was not putting in the work to prepare her policies. But Sunak will face a lit of pressure to do differently anyway.
Boris will have fewer to pick from anyway.
The non-inclusive cabinet was an issue though. It wasn't even factional, it was Truss's (so she thought) inner-circle with a couple of very grudging positions for her leadership rivals. It was notable, and odd that even folk like IDS weren't given roles.
I agree with this: if you want to do radical things, you need to make sure they have lots of people's fingerprints on them.
And making sure you have people from every wing of the party in your cabinet is a big part of that.
Yes. Early on, you can enforce your agenda too. Truss could just have easily forced her agenda on to someone like Sunak or Hunt as she did Kwasi. By the time she actually appointed Hunt of course, her authority to do that was nil.
Those figures are astonishingly discouraging for Labour given the recent opinion polls.
They are recognising that the UK is about to have what could be a good --> very good Conservative PM compared to those the voters have got used to. They are also recognising that Labour still has a helluva mountain to climb.
Yes, the polls have moved massively against the Tories, but if Rishi is deemed to have done a good job getting the markets soothed and people don't blame HIM for their finances being shot, it's still game on.
Plus, Labour still have to show they have an offer that is worth moving on from Rishi. Not nailed on by any means
You may well be correct and the Conservatives will walk the next election against what you consider to be a very weak and hapless opposition.
All I would suggest is, incumbency does not shine on relatively high mortgage rates, inflation, mortgage and car loan defaults, tax rises, service cuts and specifically a creaking NHS, oh and a year or two of industrial strife.
Now most of this is down to circumstances rather than incompetence, although Sunak has personally presided over a fair few errors, specifically during COVID. Personally I thought the furlough scheme was poorly targeted, resulting in eye- watering abuse, and "eat out to help out" was a trainwreck.
Nonetheless Sunak is streets ahead of Johnson.
I think this is very accurate commentary - though of course that may be because I agree with it anyway
I don't think we can forget the lesson of 97. The economy had recovered and things were looking much more stable and well run after the events of 93/4. And yet The Tories got slaughtered. People have long memories and, it seems, are generally unforgiving of having lost money unnecessarily due to Government incompetence. I know Starmer is no Blair in terms of charisma and presentation (something that personally I am grateful for) but nor can I see Sunak and his Chancellor being a patch of Ken Clarke.
I still maintain that, even if it might be unfairly come 2024, the Tories are screwed.
Comments
But he also doesn’t know how a petrol pump or a point of sales machine work.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1584232963998294016
The Block Grant is adjusted each year by Barnett Consequentials. These are calculated by population share and proportion of spending on devolved matter (eg Defence 0%).
The Block Grant adjustment takes account of income tax raised in Scotland. It applies English rates of income tax to Scotland and withdraws this value from the Block Grant. As such, Scotland gets the difference between Scottish rates and bands of income tax and those applied in England.
You are wrong - the "pocket money" is not taken away any more than it should do to reflect the fact Scotland has its own income tax raising powers.
One thing the BGA does assume is that Scotland's earnings grow as fast as those in England. If they don't, then this will offset (to an extent) increased tax rates in Scotland. Together, this is the "net income tax position".
Another thing - only Consequentials are adjusted by population, not the entirety of the Block Grant. This means that, over the long term, we might expect per capita funding to converge with that in England (ie fall), all else held equal (the Barnett Squeeze).
However, as Scotland's population share of the UK pop falls, we enjoy more funding per capita, counteracting this effect. I haven't come up with a name for this yet. Considering "the malcolmg no shagging bonus".
Why was Bozo so desperate for Mordaunt to back out if he had the numbers .
"Cat Neilan
@CatNeilan
Either way, Team Boris is getting increasingly punchy:
"We have the votes, Penny does not have 100 even if some are lent to her. Boris is well ahead on membership. No idea what Rishi wants to do. I presume hang around for a few months, realise it is over and head to California.""
Because even if Boris is on the ballot, he wants to create a sense of momentum with members and media - if it looks as if he's scraped on at the last minute that doesn't look so good.
If we were forced to move to another system then STV would be the worst of a bad lot. But it is still a change I would be unhappy with.
He claims they have “verified all nominations”.
I’m not discounting it completely.
And making sure you have people from every wing of the party in your cabinet is a big part of that.
So I think we can basically accept that they are idiots and suicidal whatever the outcome.
https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1584201364259115008
And why hasn’t he announced he’s running ?
Thus, the LDs, winning 10% of the vote, but returning only 10 seats, would see another 50 odd MPs enter Parliament in order of percentage achieved.
I’m not 100% sure I prefer this to party lists, but I submit it for consideration.
With the exception of the lukewarm Wallace, his backers in the party have little weight.
I'd guess he just won't get the 100 MPs and that will be the end of him.
He will be either expelled from Parliament or will just 'stand down' at the next GE.
He might be trying to dissuade defectors too.
NEW THREAD
.... and Brexit.
Who are you, Boris Johnson?
If he does get on the ballot the anti-Johnsons - ie the sane majority - reshuffle and get her on there too. All 3 stand. They eliminate Johnson in the MPs vote then (as agreed) she drops out.
Probably not but in any case for me the endstate - PM Sunak and no Member vote - is baked in and it's just a matter of how we get there.
My view is that we should move to small multi member wards for local councils (say 3 councilors per ward) elected by STV, and see how that works for us. If it improves governance, then we can talk about whether we'd like to do something similar with Westminster.
One of classic strengths of cabinet government in parliamentary - and to extent presidential - systems, is practical political necessity of representation of different views AND blocs within cabinets, even when composed from just one party.
Great cabinets are notable for vigorous internal debates between strong ministers/secretaries unafraid AND capable of battling for their views AND departments. For example, Churchill's WW2 Coalition cabinet, also "Team of Rivals" during Civil War under Abraham Lincoln.
NOT an assemblage of Yes Ministers.
What kind of heathen are you?
All I would suggest is, incumbency does not shine on relatively high mortgage rates, inflation, mortgage and car loan defaults, tax rises, service cuts and specifically a creaking NHS, oh and a year or two of industrial strife.
Now most of this is down to circumstances rather than incompetence, although Sunak has personally presided over a fair few errors, specifically during COVID. Personally I thought the furlough scheme was poorly targeted, resulting in eye- watering abuse, and "eat out to help out" was a trainwreck.
Nonetheless Sunak is streets ahead of Johnson.
I don't think we can forget the lesson of 97. The economy had recovered and things were looking much more stable and well run after the events of 93/4. And yet The Tories got slaughtered. People have long memories and, it seems, are generally unforgiving of having lost money unnecessarily due to Government incompetence. I know Starmer is no Blair in terms of charisma and presentation (something that personally I am grateful for) but nor can I see Sunak and his Chancellor being a patch of Ken Clarke.
I still maintain that, even if it might be unfairly come 2024, the Tories are screwed.