politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

Given Hancock’s likely election fate who can blame him? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,221
edited November 2022 in General
imageGiven Hancock’s likely election fate who can blame him? – politicalbetting.com

My guess is that over the next couple of years we’re going to see quite a number of stories like that involving the former Health Secretary, Hancock, in the papers this morning.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • FrequentLurkerFrequentLurker Posts: 84
    Really, Mike?

    Maybe there are 50 or so where a combination of age and current majority means they'll feel a little less constrained than usual...

    ...but for many others the prospect of a chance to fight again, a hope that the polls might turn, even if only a bit (no-one's expecting a 30% Labour lead in the GE surely), and a general sense of duty (which I think many do have) might make them think twice, surely?

    (Attempting a record for the longest first post...)
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,142
    Hancock was the man who proposed ten year prison sentences for people who lied on their COVID travel forms.

    If it were up to him we'd probably still be in lockdown.

    Good riddance.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    edited November 2022
    Third, like the Scottish Tories. If they’re lucky.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    - “Given what is happening in the polls it is very hard to envisage more than a handful of Tories remaining after the general election”

    So, is @RodCrosby ’s mighty ‘Swingback’ finally about to die?

    A handful? What, five or fewer? Are you putting hard cash on that Mike?
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,085
    Spot on, Mike.

    When there's a sea change in politics it takes time for the reality to sink home and we are seeing that in some people's disbelief and refusal to face the facts. And they are facts. You simply do not come back from poll deficits like this.

    The question is not whether Labour can win. It's by how much?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Sixth, like Anas Sarwar in the Next First Minister betting.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Fishing said:

    Hancock was the man who proposed ten year prison sentences for people who lied on their COVID travel forms.

    If it were up to him we'd probably still be in lockdown.

    Good riddance.

    LATEST Layla Moran MP, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Coronavirus: “This is not a joke or a game. Matt Hancock must ensure he is fully available to assist the Inquiry when required, not when he leaves the jungle.”

    https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1587427348927881217?s=46&t=WvOuFlAJMI5GqxaG_il1pw
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Heathener said:

    Spot on, Mike.

    When there's a sea change in politics it takes time for the reality to sink home and we are seeing that in some people's disbelief and refusal to face the facts. And they are facts. You simply do not come back from poll deficits like this.

    The question is not whether Labour can win. It's by how much?

    Punters don’t even think they’ll get a majority:

    NOM 2.32
    Lab Maj 2.42
    Con Maj 5.8
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,674
    edited November 2022
    StuartDickson said:

    - “Given what is happening in the polls it is very hard to envisage more than a handful of Tories remaining after the general election”

    So, is @RodCrosby ’s mighty ‘Swingback’ finally about to die?

    A handful? What, five or fewer? Are you putting hard cash on that Mike?

    Swingback never dies (the probability that the local maximum is on polling day is vanishingly small!).

    ETA: I know. I know.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 7,085
    edited November 2022
    StuartDickson said:

    Heathener said:

    Spot on, Mike.

    When there's a sea change in politics it takes time for the reality to sink home and we are seeing that in some people's disbelief and refusal to face the facts. And they are facts. You simply do not come back from poll deficits like this.

    The question is not whether Labour can win. It's by how much?

    Punters don’t even think they’ll get a majority:

    NOM 2.32
    Lab Maj 2.42
    Con Maj 5.8
    Good morning Stuart. Which is why there is value on Labour.

    The markets often lag behind when sea changes occur. There's a kind of recency bias, together with the fact that some of the liquidity is from people who bet on past form, not on what is actually happening now. Those who frequent political betting .com should know better and can make money this way. Not just on this market but generally.

    There is no way back for the tories from this. Were the economy in fantastic shape, people feeling that their finances were spreading, no war in Europe, and no previous 12 years of a toxic brand dragging them down ... then they would still not win the next election from here.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,674
    Heathener said:

    StuartDickson said:

    Heathener said:

    Spot on, Mike.

    When there's a sea change in politics it takes time for the reality to sink home and we are seeing that in some people's disbelief and refusal to face the facts. And they are facts. You simply do not come back from poll deficits like this.

    The question is not whether Labour can win. It's by how much?

    Punters don’t even think they’ll get a majority:

    NOM 2.32
    Lab Maj 2.42
    Con Maj 5.8
    Good morning Stuart. Which is why there is value on Labour.

    The markets often lag behind when sea changes occur. There's a kind of recency bias, together with the fact that some of the liquidity is from people who bet on past form, not on what is actually happening now. Those who frequent political betting .com should know better and can make money this way. Not just on this market but generally.

    There is no way back for the tories from this. Were the economy in fantastic shape, people feeling that their finances were spreading, no war in Europe, and no previous 12 years of a toxic brand dragging them down ... then they would still not win the next election from here.
    This is the most relevant lesson from 1997. The finishing blow was Black Wednesday, but the mantra that eroded support was "cuts in the NHS". It was absolutely true that the Thatcher administration had cut NHS spending as a proportion of GDP for 8 years. The Major government understood that problem and increased spending as a proportion of GDP to record levels - well above the previous 1970s high point. Yet, that counted for nothing - the Tories were the party of NHS cuts because that view was now well established.

    Decades later, of course, they've reinforced that impression by doing it again.

    Political shifts happen slowly, hit a catastrophic inflection, and then last a long time.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,325
    I'd never heard of this guy before.
    Remarkable story about an utter jerk.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/curious_founder/status/1587581943763587072
    Recently I learned about a man who has trained 1,000+ people to block wind and solar projects.

    I read through all his training materials, presentations, and seminars.

    Here's what I learned about him and how his students plan to "win the war on clean energy."...

    What motivates people like this ?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,734
    On 17th November one think I could see Hunt/Sunak doing is dropping the 45p rate from 150k down to 100k in exchange for mitigating/removing the withdrawal of the personal allowance and cliff-edge withdrawal of tax-free childcare.

    That would incentivise work at the higher end, particularly in the NHS, but also raise net revenue.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,176
    The prospect of never again holding high office is more likely an explanation than worry about his very safe seat. His career is over, having achieved a senior ministry that was centre of attention during an unprecedented crisis. He’s now out of favour with his colleagues, and can see a couple of terms of opposition coming down the road, after which he’ll either be too old, and/or eclipsed by what will (eventually) by then be a very young Tory parliamentary party eager to put the last few years behind them. Someone like Badenoch will be shooting for next Tory PM.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,109
    Rishi Sunak is good at not being Liz Truss. It is the quality that recommended him to Conservative MPs with an urgent vacancy to fill but it gives him only short-term credit with the public.

    Sunak’s other credential is not being Boris Johnson. The new prime minister emphasised that much from the threshold of No 10. He promised “integrity, professionalism and accountability”, making traits that should come as standard sound like innovations. He also said he would “bring compassion” to Downing Street, acknowledging its absence under his predecessor.

    Then he reappointed Suella Braverman as home secretary.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,176
    mwadams said:

    StuartDickson said:

    - “Given what is happening in the polls it is very hard to envisage more than a handful of Tories remaining after the general election”

    So, is @RodCrosby ’s mighty ‘Swingback’ finally about to die?

    A handful? What, five or fewer? Are you putting hard cash on that Mike?

    Swingback never dies (the probability that the local maximum is on polling day is vanishingly small!).

    ETA: I know. I know.
    Some voters being frightened of large majorities, and others not bothering to vote if their party is heading for a large and certain win, are both recognised phenomena.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,419
    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,734
    Nigelb said:

    I'd never heard of this guy before.
    Remarkable story about an utter jerk.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/curious_founder/status/1587581943763587072
    Recently I learned about a man who has trained 1,000+ people to block wind and solar projects.

    I read through all his training materials, presentations, and seminars.

    Here's what I learned about him and how his students plan to "win the war on clean energy."...

    What motivates people like this ?

    Identity. It's a way to define himself and mark himself out from the crowd. To be different, make an impact, get noticed and get a reputation.

    Basic human psychology, I fear.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,419
    Casino_Royale said:

    On 17th November one think I could see Hunt/Sunak doing is dropping the 45p rate from 150k down to 100k in exchange for mitigating/removing the withdrawal of the personal allowance and cliff-edge withdrawal of tax-free childcare.

    That would incentivise work at the higher end, particularly in the NHS, but also raise net revenue.

    It wouldn't affect me but the lifetime allowance should probably be raised too, doctors are always on about that one. It'd boost the stock market.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,988
    Scott_xP said:

    Rishi Sunak is good at not being Liz Truss. It is the quality that recommended him to Conservative MPs with an urgent vacancy to fill but it gives him only short-term credit with the public.

    Sunak’s other credential is not being Boris Johnson. The new prime minister emphasised that much from the threshold of No 10. He promised “integrity, professionalism and accountability”, making traits that should come as standard sound like innovations. He also said he would “bring compassion” to Downing Street, acknowledging its absence under his predecessor.

    Then he reappointed Suella Braverman as home secretary.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

    Excellent article by Raphael Behr
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,325
    edited November 2022
    .
    IanB2 said:

    The prospect of never again holding high office is more likely an explanation than worry about his very safe seat. His career is over, having achieved a senior ministry that was centre of attention during an unprecedented crisis. He’s now out of favour with his colleagues, and can see a couple of terms of opposition coming down the road, after which he’ll either be too old, and/or eclipsed by what will (eventually) by then be a very young Tory parliamentary party eager to put the last few years behind them. Someone like Badenoch will be shooting for next Tory PM.

    So resign the seat.

    Anyone has a right to try and start again, whether we approve of them or not. But the job of an MP ought not to be something you can just perform, or not perform at your own convenience.
    See also a recent ex PM who treats it with similar seriousness.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,176
    Nigelb said:

    .

    IanB2 said:

    The prospect of never again holding high office is more likely an explanation than worry about his very safe seat. His career is over, having achieved a senior ministry that was centre of attention during an unprecedented crisis. He’s now out of favour with his colleagues, and can see a couple of terms of opposition coming down the road, after which he’ll either be too old, and/or eclipsed by what will (eventually) by then be a very young Tory parliamentary party eager to put the last few years behind them. Someone like Badenoch will be shooting for next Tory PM.

    So resign the seat.

    Anyone has a right to try and start again, whether we approve of them or not. But the job of an MP ought not to be something you can just perform, or not perform at your own convenience.
    See also a recent ex PM who treats it with similar seriousness.
    For sure. I was simply challenging the suggestion in the lead, that the prospect of the Tories not holding South Suffolk is his motivation.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,325
    "Trump gave us a breathing space."

    https://mobile.twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1587140730602004482
    Meanwhile in Russia: top Kremlin propagandists ponder what their victory would look like and express their gratitude to Trump and the coronavirus for allowing their economy to survive the sanctions and be able to handle Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,723
    edited November 2022
    Casino_Royale said:

    On 17th November one think I could see Hunt/Sunak doing is dropping the 45p rate from 150k down to 100k in exchange for mitigating/removing the withdrawal of the personal allowance and cliff-edge withdrawal of tax-free childcare.

    That would incentivise work at the higher end, particularly in the NHS, but also raise net revenue.

    It's an excellent idea but surely it would lose tax revenue.

    At the moment:

    £100,000 to £125,140 = 60%
    £125,140 to £150,000 = 40%

    If you move to:

    £100,000 to £150,000 = 45%, then even someone earning £150k will pay less tax. And someone earning £125k would pay a lot less.

    To make it tax revenue neutral, you would have to bring the 45% rate in at a lower level - probably about 90k. But that would be plausible - and a lot neater and more sensible. Though there will be more losers than gainers.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,419
    It's West Suffolk, has a 23k majority and was held in 97.
    I think Hancock will probably lose it in a GE, probably in a BE.
    His wife (ex?) might hold the seat though.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,419
    Definitely in a BE even
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,176
    MikeL said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    On 17th November one think I could see Hunt/Sunak doing is dropping the 45p rate from 150k down to 100k in exchange for mitigating/removing the withdrawal of the personal allowance and cliff-edge withdrawal of tax-free childcare.

    That would incentivise work at the higher end, particularly in the NHS, but also raise net revenue.

    It's an excellent idea but surely it would lose tax revenue.

    At the moment:

    £100,000 to £125,140 = 60%
    £125,140 to £150,000 = 40%

    If you move to:

    £100,000 to £150,000 = 45%, then even someone earning £150k will pay less tax. And someone earning £125k would pay a lot less.

    To make it tax revenue neutral, you would have to bring the 45% rate in at a lower level - probably about 90k. But that would be plausible.
    Abolish NI, introduce a simplified tax system with just two rates, 30% and 50%, and then you simply need to decide where to put the break point.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,176
    edited November 2022
    Pulpstar said:

    It's West Suffolk, has a 23k majority and was held in 97.
    I think Hancock will probably lose it in a GE, probably in a BE.
    His wife (ex?) might hold the seat though.

    Yes, West Suffolk, sorry. Newmarket, Haverhill and Mildenhall. With the ageing of the population and decline in agricultural workforce, it has probably trended Tory beneath the short term political swings, although around Newmarket is possibly getting some Cambridge overspill more recently. I’d say it’s a stretch for the Tories to lose it even in a bad year, especially with Labour as the challenger.
  • TazTaz Posts: 15,069
    Nigelb said:

    I'd never heard of this guy before.
    Remarkable story about an utter jerk.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/curious_founder/status/1587581943763587072
    Recently I learned about a man who has trained 1,000+ people to block wind and solar projects.

    I read through all his training materials, presentations, and seminars.

    Here's what I learned about him and how his students plan to "win the war on clean energy."...

    What motivates people like this ?

    What motivates any fanatic.

    He’s no different to the just stop oil cranks. Just a different view.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,419
    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's West Suffolk, has a 23k majority and was held in 97.
    I think Hancock will probably lose it in a GE, probably in a BE.
    His wife (ex?) might hold the seat though.

    Yes, West Suffolk, sorry. Newmarket, Haverhill and Mildenhall. With the ageing of the population and decline in agricultural workforce, it has probably trended Tory beneath the short term political swings, although around Newmarket is possibly getting some Cambridge overspill more recently. I’d say it’s a stretch for the Tories to lose it even in a bad year.
    Yeah perhaps Hancock could manage it though - this is reminding me of Opik
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,176
    IanB2 said:

    MikeL said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    On 17th November one think I could see Hunt/Sunak doing is dropping the 45p rate from 150k down to 100k in exchange for mitigating/removing the withdrawal of the personal allowance and cliff-edge withdrawal of tax-free childcare.

    That would incentivise work at the higher end, particularly in the NHS, but also raise net revenue.

    It's an excellent idea but surely it would lose tax revenue.

    At the moment:

    £100,000 to £125,140 = 60%
    £125,140 to £150,000 = 40%

    If you move to:

    £100,000 to £150,000 = 45%, then even someone earning £150k will pay less tax. And someone earning £125k would pay a lot less.

    To make it tax revenue neutral, you would have to bring the 45% rate in at a lower level - probably about 90k. But that would be plausible.
    Abolish NI, introduce a simplified tax system with just two rates, 30% and 50%, and then you simply need to decide where to put the break point.
    p.s. keeping employers’ NI, obvs.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,734
    MikeL said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    On 17th November one think I could see Hunt/Sunak doing is dropping the 45p rate from 150k down to 100k in exchange for mitigating/removing the withdrawal of the personal allowance and cliff-edge withdrawal of tax-free childcare.

    That would incentivise work at the higher end, particularly in the NHS, but also raise net revenue.

    It's an excellent idea but surely it would lose tax revenue.

    At the moment:

    £100,000 to £125,140 = 60%
    £125,140 to £150,000 = 40%

    If you move to:

    £100,000 to £150,000 = 45%, then even someone earning £150k will pay less tax. And someone earning £125k would pay a lot less.

    To make it tax revenue neutral, you would have to bring the 45% rate in at a lower level - probably about 90k. But that would be plausible - and a lot neater and more sensible. Though there will be more losers than gainers.
    It would need to be tinkered with to make sense but it would bring more people into the workforce, and at higher salaries for longer, so that would raise revenue by incentivising work too.

    It might also help abate the recruitment crisis in the NHS too.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited November 2022
    Trouble at t’mill:

    Reassuring to hear today that @Keir_Starmer has read & engaged with the Cass Review interim report on healthcare for children with gender dysphoria. It’s so important we have politicians willing to engage with medical evidence over ideology.
    https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1587552407583612930

    Hi @Keir_Starmer, given your profoundly harmful intervention on LGBTQ+ rights, could you please read this thread by the mother of a trans child, educate yourself and apologise.
    https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1587527580906930176

    This seems like a fair and accurate summation of Starmer's Mumsnet interview. I fear that his determination to find a solution has led him to accept too much of the anti-trans argument. His position on Gillick competence is simply wrong, and seems like pandering. Disappointing.
    https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1587534212919345153

    Owen Jones/Ash Sarkar et al have obviously distorted this and claimed the question was only about "social transitioning".
    You can see from the full question that they are lying.….

    They edited it to leave out the specific part asking about puberty blockers.
    A lot of people have fallen for it.
    Some deliberately
    https://twitter.com/ExStrategist/status/1587695626795581440
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,538
    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175
    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's West Suffolk, has a 23k majority and was held in 97.
    I think Hancock will probably lose it in a GE, probably in a BE.
    His wife (ex?) might hold the seat though.

    Yes, West Suffolk, sorry. Newmarket, Haverhill and Mildenhall. With the ageing of the population and decline in agricultural workforce, it has probably trended Tory beneath the short term political swings, although around Newmarket is possibly getting some Cambridge overspill more recently. I’d say it’s a stretch for the Tories to lose it even in a bad year, especially with Labour as the challenger.
    Extrrapalating from the recent or even current polls is easy to do and a Tory wipeout could result. But the polls are already in a state of flux and the Sunak/Hunt combo is very capable of keeping that process moving to a degree sufficient for a more respectable GE result, maybe even more. Of course it's really impossible to say. The big problem for Labour remains the failure to seal the deal beyond 'we're not them'. They still show many signs of not really understanding the voters and their concerns and do present as stale, dull and resentful. After all when will they have a woman/ethnic minority PM?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,419
    bondegezou said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    I'd thought of that constructing my reply - a feature of extra protection for independent elected MPs, all too rare these days.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,109
    felix said:

    After all when will they have a woman/ethnic minority PM?

    Truss did them a HUGE favour there...
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,538
    Pulpstar said:

    bondegezou said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    I'd thought of that constructing my reply - a feature of extra protection for independent elected MPs, all too rare these days.
    I don’t see why independent MPs should be immune to a rule affecting other MPs.

    And if you are concerned about MPs being too partisan, making them even more beholden to the party whips doesn’t seem like a good idea.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 72,325
    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    I'd never heard of this guy before.
    Remarkable story about an utter jerk.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/curious_founder/status/1587581943763587072
    Recently I learned about a man who has trained 1,000+ people to block wind and solar projects.

    I read through all his training materials, presentations, and seminars.

    Here's what I learned about him and how his students plan to "win the war on clean energy."...

    What motivates people like this ?

    What motivates any fanatic.

    He’s no different to the just stop oil cranks. Just a different view.
    Not quite the same thing.

    The just stop oil folk, however unrealistic ther views, probably believe what they're spouting.
    No way this guy doesn't know he's concocted an enormous tissue of lies.

    Cranks versus an utterly malign cynic.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,903
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

    "Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,176
    bondegezou said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    The glib answer is that they can self-flagellate…

    But you probably want to focus in on the offences for which someone might lose the whip rather than the loss of whip per se
  • RunDeepRunDeep Posts: 77
    No words.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-organised-crime-vetting-officers-met-report-hmic-ks57flj96

    "Parr’s review found that even when the vetting process turned up “disturbing information” such as a history of discrimination or extremism on social media, or a litany of sexual misconduct complaints, applicants were accepted.

    Recruits with families in organised crime have been hired in the past three years. In one force, which was not named, an applicant passed vetting despite a history of indecent exposure.

    A chief constable allowed the transfer of an officer accused of sexually assaulting junior officers and a member of the public, because they felt it would “make the force more diverse”.

    The review found that female officers and staff were routinely exposed to sexism and predatory behaviour. This indicates that the Met’s “anything goes attitude” and failure to sack rogue officers, reported in a review last month, are prevalent in other forces."

    Meanwhile in Scotland, an SNP Minister can say this with a straight face -

    “There is no evidence that predatory and abusive men have ever had to pretend to be anything else to carry out abusive and predatory behaviour.”

    This is an extraordinarily ignorant statement. If there is one thing we know about sexual predators, it is that they will use whatever loopholes and opportunities exist, including pretending to be what they are not. Ample evidence confirms this. This report by Martin Parr is just the latest in a long list of such evidence.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,988
    edited November 2022
    Every last drip of optimism for the Tories lies in the person of Rishi Sunak but for the reasons we've seen over the last few weeks that is a forlorn hope.

    He has employed his own personal PR company which has done a good job in getting him this far but now he's on his own and his limitations are becoming obvious. He's been promoted well beyond his experience and talent. To have created the Suella Braverman crisis on day one is like watching a first time learner driver crash head on into a department store window.

    Matt Hancock is making it worse. A whole can of Tory worms not least his previous hedonistic boss are going to come crawling out of this one.The public were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt but now he's judged one of his ex colleagues so harshly it'll be open season on the Sunaks. Non doms In-laws hedge funds PR companies and all.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Pulpstar said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    It's West Suffolk, has a 23k majority and was held in 97.
    I think Hancock will probably lose it in a GE, probably in a BE.
    His wife (ex?) might hold the seat though.

    Yes, West Suffolk, sorry. Newmarket, Haverhill and Mildenhall. With the ageing of the population and decline in agricultural workforce, it has probably trended Tory beneath the short term political swings, although around Newmarket is possibly getting some Cambridge overspill more recently. I’d say it’s a stretch for the Tories to lose it even in a bad year.
    Yeah perhaps Hancock could manage it though - this is reminding me of Opik
    Opik ... or Oaten.

    Cheeky girls, coprophilia, reality TV ... it's just standard for 45-55 year-old political failures.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175
    Scott_xP said:

    felix said:

    After all when will they have a woman/ethnic minority PM?

    Truss did them a HUGE favour there...
    Hardly. Her problem had sfa to do with her sex.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,820
    you know the world is bonkers when Saudi Arabia is awarded a WINTER games (Asian).
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,990
    mwadams said:

    Heathener said:

    StuartDickson said:

    Heathener said:

    Spot on, Mike.

    When there's a sea change in politics it takes time for the reality to sink home and we are seeing that in some people's disbelief and refusal to face the facts. And they are facts. You simply do not come back from poll deficits like this.

    The question is not whether Labour can win. It's by how much?

    Punters don’t even think they’ll get a majority:

    NOM 2.32
    Lab Maj 2.42
    Con Maj 5.8
    Good morning Stuart. Which is why there is value on Labour.

    The markets often lag behind when sea changes occur. There's a kind of recency bias, together with the fact that some of the liquidity is from people who bet on past form, not on what is actually happening now. Those who frequent political betting .com should know better and can make money this way. Not just on this market but generally.

    There is no way back for the tories from this. Were the economy in fantastic shape, people feeling that their finances were spreading, no war in Europe, and no previous 12 years of a toxic brand dragging them down ... then they would still not win the next election from here.
    This is the most relevant lesson from 1997. The finishing blow was Black Wednesday, but the mantra that eroded support was "cuts in the NHS". It was absolutely true that the Thatcher administration had cut NHS spending as a proportion of GDP for 8 years. The Major government understood that problem and increased spending as a proportion of GDP to record levels - well above the previous 1970s high point. Yet, that counted for nothing - the Tories were the party of NHS cuts because that view was now well established.

    Decades later, of course, they've reinforced that impression by doing it again.

    Political shifts happen slowly, hit a catastrophic inflection, and then last a long time.
    How much of Major's increased spending was swallowed up by the new NHS Internal Market? People want to see the £ spent on front line healthcare. Not on layers of non-medical managers and pointless competing contracts.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,109
    felix said:

    Scott_xP said:

    felix said:

    After all when will they have a woman/ethnic minority PM?

    Truss did them a HUGE favour there...
    Hardly. Her problem had sfa to do with her sex.
    Indeed, but the answer to the question "Why not have a woman" is for now "What, like Liz Truss?"
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175
    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

    "Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."

    Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,419
    bondegezou said:

    Pulpstar said:

    bondegezou said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    I'd thought of that constructing my reply - a feature of extra protection for independent elected MPs, all too rare these days.
    I don’t see why independent MPs should be immune to a rule affecting other MPs.

    And if you are concerned about MPs being too partisan, making them even more beholden to the party whips doesn’t seem like a good idea.
    Speaker's disgression perhaps then.
    The point is there should be sanction for this behaviour. Hancock's constituents deserve better.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,109
    Roger said:

    To have created the Suella Braverman crisis on day one is like watching a first time learner driver crash head on into a department store window.

    Rishi's problem is not that Cruella is going to fail, it's that Blukip voters agree with her, and when she fails they will blame him, not her.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,109
    Bradford station for the chop?

    New transport secretary Mark Harper tells @skynews a final decision hasn't been taken yet, but Rishi Sunak made clear when he came in he was here to fix the previous PM's mistakes.

    Liz Truss during her leadership campaign promised that Northern Powerhouse Rail services would stop at a new station in Bradford - a key demand of Northern MPs and council leaders.

    Boris Johnson's plan had been to do a series of upgrades on existing line.

    https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1587706271398084609
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,990
    Question: Tories withdraw the whip from an MP swanning off to sunnier parts to earn a load of cash on the side. So why did they not do the same to Boris Johnson?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,065
    bondegezou said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    This will happen so rarely, that it doesn't really need an extra clause in the rule to cover it. As Pulpstar says there aren't many independents to start off with.
    Independents are personally motivated by the politics rather than party promotion, so they are more likely to keep engaged with parliament.
    Then if they want to stand at the next election, not having a party machine behind them, they need to fight for every vote and so wouldn't dare to be absent from parliament for very long.

    So you are left with the very occasional independent MP who has given up fighting for their cause, knows they wont stand again and is brazen enough to feel no moral obligation to represent their constituents any more.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,538
    Pulpstar said:

    bondegezou said:

    Pulpstar said:

    bondegezou said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    I'd thought of that constructing my reply - a feature of extra protection for independent elected MPs, all too rare these days.
    I don’t see why independent MPs should be immune to a rule affecting other MPs.

    And if you are concerned about MPs being too partisan, making them even more beholden to the party whips doesn’t seem like a good idea.
    Speaker's disgression perhaps then.
    The point is there should be sanction for this behaviour. Hancock's constituents deserve better.
    That sounds like a better way of achieving the outcome.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,708
    Hancocks bad press confuses me. There are far nastier, more corrupt and more useless Tories that escape this level of abuse. His biggest mistake was to appear human. Unforgivable.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Heathener said:

    StuartDickson said:

    Heathener said:

    Spot on, Mike.

    When there's a sea change in politics it takes time for the reality to sink home and we are seeing that in some people's disbelief and refusal to face the facts. And they are facts. You simply do not come back from poll deficits like this.

    The question is not whether Labour can win. It's by how much?

    Punters don’t even think they’ll get a majority:

    NOM 2.32
    Lab Maj 2.42
    Con Maj 5.8
    Good morning Stuart. Which is why there is value on Labour.

    The markets often lag behind when sea changes occur. There's a kind of recency bias, together with the fact that some of the liquidity is from people who bet on past form, not on what is actually happening now. Those who frequent political betting .com should know better and can make money this way. Not just on this market but generally.

    There is no way back for the tories from this. Were the economy in fantastic shape, people feeling that their finances were spreading, no war in Europe, and no previous 12 years of a toxic brand dragging them down ... then they would still not win the next election from here.
    Good morning young heathen,
    I concur.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,830
    Scott_xP said:

    Bradford station for the chop?

    New transport secretary Mark Harper tells @skynews a final decision hasn't been taken yet, but Rishi Sunak made clear when he came in he was here to fix the previous PM's mistakes.

    Liz Truss during her leadership campaign promised that Northern Powerhouse Rail services would stop at a new station in Bradford - a key demand of Northern MPs and council leaders.

    Boris Johnson's plan had been to do a series of upgrades on existing line.

    https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1587706271398084609

    That would be extremely unfortunate given Liz Truss' promise to return to a sane rail plan rather than the blatant forgery that was the IRP was her one good idea.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.

    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,176
    edited November 2022
    eristdoof said:

    bondegezou said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    This will happen so rarely, that it doesn't really need an extra clause in the rule to cover it. As Pulpstar says there aren't many independents to start off with.
    Independents are personally motivated by the politics rather than party promotion, so they are more likely to keep engaged with parliament.
    Then if they want to stand at the next election, not having a party machine behind them, they need to fight for every vote and so wouldn't dare to be absent from parliament for very long.

    So you are left with the very occasional independent MP who has given up fighting for their cause, knows they wont stand again and is brazen enough to feel no moral obligation to represent their constituents any more.
    Yes, but the whip is a party matter, and shouldn’t by itself incur a constitutional penalty, making party power even stronger.

    For example if a party and a candidate is elected on a manifesto of “no fracking”, but subsequent events lead that party in government to whip its MPs in a confidence vote to support fracking, how can there possibly be a constitutional penalty for an MP who loses the whip because they stuck to their manifesto promise?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,830
    Jonathan said:

    Hancocks bad press confuses me. There are far nastier, more corrupt and more useless Tories that escape this level of abuse. His biggest mistake was to appear human. Unforgivable.

    His biggest mistake was to be caught on camera flouting his own laws for his own gratification.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    IanB2 said:

    mwadams said:

    StuartDickson said:

    - “Given what is happening in the polls it is very hard to envisage more than a handful of Tories remaining after the general election”

    So, is @RodCrosby ’s mighty ‘Swingback’ finally about to die?

    A handful? What, five or fewer? Are you putting hard cash on that Mike?

    Swingback never dies (the probability that the local maximum is on polling day is vanishingly small!).

    ETA: I know. I know.
    Some voters being frightened of large majorities, and others not bothering to vote if their party is heading for a large and certain win, are both recognised phenomena.
    Plus the temptation to vote for your *real* first choice party if you know Labour are going to win anyway.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,109
    Transport Secretary Mark Harper avoids talking about the language used by Suella Braveman MP in the Commons and says the home secretary "understands the scale of the problem" with illegal migrant crossings.

    https://trib.al/Rx0iR33

    📺 Sky 501, Freeview 233 and YouTube https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1587709400743034880/video/1


    Cruella's rhetoric is now the official Tory party line...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    felix said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

    "Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."

    Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
    The likes of Raphael Behr are as delusional as the most unhinged Ukipper. For him, Brexit Britain is uniquely dystopian and dysfunctional. Nothing can go right. Everything must go wrong. Everything in Britain IS wrong - is bad, sad, mad and disturbing. Babies are continuously eaten by rats. Trees grow upside down. Monsters pretend to be dinner ladies

    It’s like the most rabid Daily Mail editorial - but from the other side. A strange pathology

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,903
    Leon said:

    felix said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

    "Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."

    Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
    The likes of Raphael Behr are as delusional as the most unhinged Ukipper. For him, Brexit Britain is uniquely dystopian and dysfunctional. Nothing can go right. Everything must go wrong. Everything in Britain IS wrong - is bad, sad, mad and disturbing. Babies are continuously eaten by rats. Trees grow upside down. Monsters pretend to be dinner ladies

    It’s like the most rabid Daily Mail editorial - but from the other side. A strange pathology

    Read the article. It's nothing like what you imagine.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,109
    NEW: Govt is considering changing part of Manston to become a non-detention facility, @TimesRadio has learnt

    Migrants would be free to come & go, mitigating govt concerns Home Office is breaching the law by detaining people for >24 hours

    But likely to be v controversial locally

    https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1587710417291337728
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,223
    Pulpstar said:

    bondegezou said:

    Pulpstar said:

    bondegezou said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    I'd thought of that constructing my reply - a feature of extra protection for independent elected MPs, all too rare these days.
    I don’t see why independent MPs should be immune to a rule affecting other MPs.

    And if you are concerned about MPs being too partisan, making them even more beholden to the party whips doesn’t seem like a good idea.
    Speaker's disgression perhaps then.
    The point is there should be sanction for this behaviour. Hancock's constituents deserve better.
    Unusually, I disagree with you. I don't think he's doing anything worse than many MPs do. They are not employees, they are elected representatives. The people get to give their verdict every five years.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    🧵 Sky News has an interview with Boris Johnson on Ukraine out today. It's a very interesting discussion. Despite being asked repeatedly, he keeps a laser-like focus on Ukraine rather than his own political implosion & ambitions. A few highlights from the interview below:

    https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1587542520086642691
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,734
    felix said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

    "Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."

    Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
    It's just the Guardian pandering to the prejudices of its readers.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    Dead wrong, puts parties indirectly a position to sack their own MPs *as MPs* which they currently just cannot do.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,990
    Leon said:

    felix said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

    "Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."

    Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
    The likes of Raphael Behr are as delusional as the most unhinged Ukipper. For him, Brexit Britain is uniquely dystopian and dysfunctional. Nothing can go right. Everything must go wrong. Everything in Britain IS wrong - is bad, sad, mad and disturbing. Babies are continuously eaten by rats. Trees grow upside down. Monsters pretend to be dinner ladies

    It’s like the most rabid Daily Mail editorial - but from the other side. A strange pathology

    Your "monsters pretend to be dinner ladies" jibe is a bit unfortunate with this morning's news that monsters are pretending to be coppers.

    Is everything broken? No. Is a lot broken? Yes. And foaming away with absolutism just makes the majority who aren't ideologically blinkered say "hang on, but this is shit".

    The Tories aren't a score and more behind in the polls because of anything specific Truss did. Its that Truss wiped the scales from the eyes and people started to see things how they are. No matter how much Mail / GBeebies foaming is produced going forward, those eye scales aren't going to be reinstated.
  • RunDeepRunDeep Posts: 77
    RochdalePioneers said:

    Question: Tories withdraw the whip from an MP swanning off to sunnier parts to earn a load of cash on the side. So why did they not do the same to Boris Johnson?

    Or indeed Geoffrey Cox.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Roger said:

    Every last drip of optimism for the Tories lies in the person of Rishi Sunak but for the reasons we've seen over the last few weeks that is a forlorn hope.

    He has employed his own personal PR company which has done a good job in getting him this far but now he's on his own and his limitations are becoming obvious. He's been promoted well beyond his experience and talent. To have created the Suella Braverman crisis on day one is like watching a first time learner driver crash head on into a department store window.

    Matt Hancock is making it worse. A whole can of Tory worms not least his previous hedonistic boss are going to come crawling out of this one.The public were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt but now he's judged one of his ex colleagues so harshly it'll be open season on the Sunaks. Non doms In-laws hedge funds PR companies and all.

    Yes, the Tories are now a one-trick pony, and that pony is called Rishi. Shame the miserable animal has colic, ringworm and hoof rot.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    Leon said:

    felix said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

    "Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."

    Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
    The likes of Raphael Behr are as delusional as the most unhinged Ukipper. For him, Brexit Britain is uniquely dystopian and dysfunctional. Nothing can go right. Everything must go wrong. Everything in Britain IS wrong - is bad, sad, mad and disturbing. Babies are continuously eaten by rats. Trees grow upside down. Monsters pretend to be dinner ladies

    It’s like the most rabid Daily Mail editorial - but from the other side. A strange pathology

    Read the article. It's nothing like what you imagine.
    I did. The peroration is insane
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,204
    CarlottaVance said:

    Interesting thread:

    We’ve had numerous requests for data about Albanian asylum seekers following reports of an increase in the number of Albanian citizens crossing the English Channel over the summer.

    Here’s a thread with some data about what we do and don’t know.

    https://twitter.com/MigObs/status/1587551632530849827

    It is: It seems that the high success rate of asylum applications is down to women being protected from traffickers. That sounds an appropriate use of an asylum system to me.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 56,606
    The Channel migrants story has the potential to bring down both main parties
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,990
    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Govt is considering changing part of Manston to become a non-detention facility, @TimesRadio has learnt

    Migrants would be free to come & go, mitigating govt concerns Home Office is breaching the law by detaining people for >24 hours

    But likely to be v controversial locally

    https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1587710417291337728

    Isn't that an invitation for more locals to take action against the "invaders"? We've already had a fire-bombing this week. Also, "you are free to leave, but you can't get food / help outside and the locals hate you" is hardly looking after them better.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,531
    StuartDickson said:

    Sixth, like Anas Sarwar in the Next First Minister betting.

    What bookie was daft enough to make him that close.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 36,109
    The Home Office is planning to book a hotel just a 10-minute drive from Rishi Sunak's Georgian manor in N Yorkshire, @matt_dathan reveals today

    The 44-room hotel is one of a dozen hotels govt is seeking to commission for migrants this winter to ease crowding at Manston

    https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1587713152082493441
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,531
    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    That's a dangerous road IMO. What constitutes 'extended absence' ? Would it cover illness? Wasn't there an MP who took an extended absence because he got called up in reserves? Would it cover MPs like the late Stuart Bell, who could not even be ar*sed holding constituency surgeries and spent lots of time at his home in ?France?.

    More interesting would be the concept of 'minimum standards' that MPs were expected to achieve, e.g. number of surgeries held, votes attended etc. But I'm unsure that's a wise idea, especially as the role of an MP is poorly-defined.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Hancocks bad press confuses me. There are far nastier, more corrupt and more useless Tories that escape this level of abuse. His biggest mistake was to appear human. Unforgivable.

    His biggest mistake was to be caught on camera flouting his own laws for his own gratification.
    I would have thought that having been MINIELF he would be well placed for a lucrative job in the private medical sector, and that this sort of nonsense diminished the prospects of that. Perhaps he has spent the last 2 years investigating the possibilities and concluded they are not there.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,990
    RunDeep said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    Question: Tories withdraw the whip from an MP swanning off to sunnier parts to earn a load of cash on the side. So why did they not do the same to Boris Johnson?

    Or indeed Geoffrey Cox.
    Forgot about him. But that was during Covid and feels a long way away. Boris buggered off very recently, did a high profile return in triumph and scarpered away again.

    Consistency please Tories. If going to the jungle means no whip, surely going to Dominica means the same.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,903
    Ishmael_Z said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Hancocks bad press confuses me. There are far nastier, more corrupt and more useless Tories that escape this level of abuse. His biggest mistake was to appear human. Unforgivable.

    His biggest mistake was to be caught on camera flouting his own laws for his own gratification.
    I would have thought that having been MINIELF he would be well placed for a lucrative job in the private medical sector, and that this sort of nonsense diminished the prospects of that. Perhaps he has spent the last 2 years investigating the possibilities and concluded they are not there.
    He may think that when the public sees what a great guy he is, he'll be rehabilitated politically. He wouldn't be the first.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 49,204
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    bondegezou said:

    Pulpstar said:

    bondegezou said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    I'd thought of that constructing my reply - a feature of extra protection for independent elected MPs, all too rare these days.
    I don’t see why independent MPs should be immune to a rule affecting other MPs.

    And if you are concerned about MPs being too partisan, making them even more beholden to the party whips doesn’t seem like a good idea.
    Speaker's disgression perhaps then.
    The point is there should be sanction for this behaviour. Hancock's constituents deserve better.
    Unusually, I disagree with you. I don't think he's doing anything worse than many MPs do. They are not employees, they are elected representatives. The people get to give their verdict every five years.
    Yes, quite a lot of MPs skive off. Being a backbencher is largely pointless with a government that has an eighty seet majority that flips policies regularly by means of fickle executive decisions.

    Once you have no prospects of joining the ministerial gravy train, and handed in your letter to the 1922, it becomes pretty pointless. The problem isn't skiving MPs so much as a system that elects a parliamentary executive with little restraint on their actions, making most legislators pointless apart from anointing a new leader occasionally.

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 28,990
    JosiasJessop said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    That's a dangerous road IMO. What constitutes 'extended absence' ? Would it cover illness? Wasn't there an MP who took an extended absence because he got called up in reserves? Would it cover MPs like the late Stuart Bell, who could not even be ar*sed holding constituency surgeries and spent lots of time at his home in ?France?.

    More interesting would be the concept of 'minimum standards' that MPs were expected to achieve, e.g. number of surgeries held, votes attended etc. But I'm unsure that's a wise idea, especially as the role of an MP is poorly-defined.
    We would need to start by defining what the role of an MP is. A job? they cannot resign, and cannot have pay withdrawn for non-attendance. And how many hours is expected of an MP when they can be appointed to a ministry which is another job with another pay packet.

    Anything statutory would be difficult. But the whip is in the gift of the parties. Public non-attendance is a whip-withdrawal offence if you are Matt Hancock but not if you are Boris Johnson...
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175
    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    felix said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

    "Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."

    Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
    First class whataboutery.
    Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
    Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 50,176
    felix said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    felix said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

    "Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."

    Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
    First class whataboutery.
    Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
    Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
    "move on" doesn't, and shouldn't, exclude scrutiny, analysis and review of the real-world impact of past policy decisions. Nor exclude consideration of whether changes to those decisions might improve or rectify things.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited November 2022
    1/ A short story, featuring @RichardJMurphy. In part one, Richard tells us that gilts purchased via QE will never, ever, be resold to the market. He is 100% confident about this. The chance of it happening, says Richard, is zero. He invites the Governor of the Bank of England…

    2/… to get in touch.

    In part two, the Bank of England… oh dear.    https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1587507078125551617

    In an historic milestone, the Bank of England has begun to unwind the key emergency support it brought in after the 2008 financial crisis.

    The bank sold off a tranche of government bonds on Tuesday, as it started to reverse the process known as "quantitative easing" or QE.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63474176.amp
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,476
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Hancocks bad press confuses me. There are far nastier, more corrupt and more useless Tories that escape this level of abuse. His biggest mistake was to appear human. Unforgivable.

    His biggest mistake was to be caught on camera flouting his own laws for his own gratification.
    I would have thought that having been MINIELF he would be well placed for a lucrative job in the private medical sector, and that this sort of nonsense diminished the prospects of that. Perhaps he has spent the last 2 years investigating the possibilities and concluded they are not there.
    He may think that when the public sees what a great guy he is, he'll be rehabilitated politically. He wouldn't be the first.
    He's hoping for an Ed Balls rehabilitation, but a George Galloway embarrassment seems more likely.

    If he wants us to love him, he needed to do Strictly or Bake Off.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,313
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    bondegezou said:

    Pulpstar said:

    bondegezou said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Provision for recall should be extended to include extended absence when parliament is sitting if the sitting MP's party deems the absence worthy of withdrawing the whip.

    What happens if someone is elected as an independent and doesn’t have a whip?

    I'd thought of that constructing my reply - a feature of extra protection for independent elected MPs, all too rare these days.
    I don’t see why independent MPs should be immune to a rule affecting other MPs.

    And if you are concerned about MPs being too partisan, making them even more beholden to the party whips doesn’t seem like a good idea.
    Speaker's disgression perhaps then.
    The point is there should be sanction for this behaviour. Hancock's constituents deserve better.
    Unusually, I disagree with you. I don't think he's doing anything worse than many MPs do. They are not employees, they are elected representatives. The people get to give their verdict every five years.
    Yes, quite a lot of MPs skive off. Being a backbencher is largely pointless with a government that has an eighty seet majority that flips policies regularly by means of fickle executive decisions.

    Once you have no prospects of joining the ministerial gravy train, and handed in your letter to the 1922, it becomes pretty pointless. The problem isn't skiving MPs so much as a system that elects a parliamentary executive with little restraint on their actions, making most legislators pointless apart from anointing a new leader occasionally.

    My view is, while MPs are encouraged to do second jobs working for the Government as ministers (or third jobs, Rishi is leader of the Conservative Party as well as PM and an MP) it would be rank hypocrisy to prevent them doing second jobs of other types.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    RochdalePioneers said:

    RunDeep said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    Question: Tories withdraw the whip from an MP swanning off to sunnier parts to earn a load of cash on the side. So why did they not do the same to Boris Johnson?

    Or indeed Geoffrey Cox.
    Forgot about him. But that was during Covid and feels a long way away. Boris buggered off very recently, did a high profile return in triumph and scarpered away again.

    Consistency please Tories. If going to the jungle means no whip, surely going to Dominica means the same.
    I wonder how frequent 3 line whips are, hence the chance of Hancock missing one in a 3 week absence.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Contrary to pretty much every opinion poll, the left wins the Danish general election by the slimmest possible margin. A genuine surprise.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    felix said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    felix said:

    OnlyLivingBoy said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/02/rishi-sunak-suella-braverman-british-politics-austerity-hostile-environment

    "Austerity in the Treasury; a hostile environment at the Home Office. After 12 years and four prime ministers, British politics has cycled back to where it started, but that much meaner and poorer. All for what? Where did the journey take us? To Brexit, to rage, to division and economic downgrade. A dozen years wasted. A crusade whipped up by nationalist zealots to a holy land that doesn’t exist to fight an enemy that was actually our friend, defeating no one but ourselves."

    Hmm. Becajuse there is no inflation or energy crisis in the EU. There are no EU countries with immigration policies like the UK. The EU central bank is not raising interest rates. There are no riots in France, or protests in Spain......No EU country has far right parties snapping at the heels of power.....
    First class whataboutery.
    Try reading the article. The point it is making isn't that the EU is better than us. It is that leaving the EU hasn't helped the UK in any way, while stoking division and distracting policymakers from our real problems - a point that voters seem to agree with.
    Brexit happened. You need to move on. As does the Guardian.
    You need to read the article.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,313
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Hancocks bad press confuses me. There are far nastier, more corrupt and more useless Tories that escape this level of abuse. His biggest mistake was to appear human. Unforgivable.

    His biggest mistake was to be caught on camera flouting his own laws for his own gratification.
    Actually I don't think he did. He could claim his mistress (with whom he worked) was in his bubble and his family (living in Norfolk I think) wasn't. Of course, politically, he couldn't make that argument.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,988
    edited November 2022
    RochdalePioneers said:

    Question: Tories withdraw the whip from an MP swanning off to sunnier parts to earn a load of cash on the side. So why did they not do the same to Boris Johnson?

    Precisely. The parallels are so exact this is the inevitable next question.

    .........The third one is that if Rishi screws up on such simple things as treating two colleagues so differently for the same misdemeanour and employing a known sociopath and liar as Home Secretary is he really a suitable person to have as PM?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Stuartinromford said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    Hancocks bad press confuses me. There are far nastier, more corrupt and more useless Tories that escape this level of abuse. His biggest mistake was to appear human. Unforgivable.

    His biggest mistake was to be caught on camera flouting his own laws for his own gratification.
    I would have thought that having been MINIELF he would be well placed for a lucrative job in the private medical sector, and that this sort of nonsense diminished the prospects of that. Perhaps he has spent the last 2 years investigating the possibilities and concluded they are not there.
    He may think that when the public sees what a great guy he is, he'll be rehabilitated politically. He wouldn't be the first.
    He's hoping for an Ed Balls rehabilitation, but a George Galloway embarrassment seems more likely.

    If he wants us to love him, he needed to do Strictly or Bake Off.
    He probably asked. Whole thing reeks of aiming low and failing.
This discussion has been closed.