So the tory Right on here are dismissing the partygate report/debate as "a sideshow for political obsessives." Apparently "it doesn't matter to people."
This place, or rather some of its elderly inhabitants (because that's what they do: slump on here all day long), are completely out of touch with the mood of this country.
There's a reason why #PrivilegesCommitteeReport is treding No.1 right now on twitter, and why caller after caller to recent chat shows have been so upset, and if you don't get that then you don't get what's coming and you will continue to disbelieve the opinion polls: mean Labour lead of last 4 polls = 19.25%. On the morning after the crushing Conservative General Election defeat, do wake up and smell the coffee.
Meanwhile, on topic, the by-election betting is about right except Somerton and Frome, which the LibDems will win handsomely.
Have a nice day. Oh, and do get out and about and start listening to ordinary people. It's how I knew Vote Leave would win and I made a tidy sum as a result.
The history books bumped Rishi Sunak down a few notches tonight.
He’s now confirmed to be sub-Theresa May.
Nah. History won’t care about tonight’s vote (or not). It’s a paranthetical remark at most
It’s all a sideshow for political obsessives. It doesn’t matter a hot to most people, I think the mortgage time bomb is of far greater concern and impact to people, along with other issues like cost of living and energy.
The most important thing that Sunak can achieve as PM is to resist calls for a bail out of people who borrowed too much.
If we go down that route we are done as a meaningful economy and society - the government can’t insure all personal and private risks
Bill Cash Nick Fletcher Adam Holloway Karl McCartney Joy Morrissey Heather Wheeler
and 1 unknown..
Plus two tellers?
There were two Labour tellers, who didn't register noes themselves. Even organising tellers seems to have been too controversial in this division and it looks like Labour had to step in.
Fewer than one in five voters believe that Scotland’s constitutional future should be decided by a de facto referendum, new polling has shown.
The research reveals widespread rejection of the idea that the results of people electing representatives to either Westminster or Holyrood could be seen as proxy votes for Scottish independence.
The Panelbase poll comes as Humza Yousaf said that building a consensus among voters to ensure there is a consistent majority for secession was the only way to break the “logjam” over Scotland’s constitutional future.
Promising integrity and accountability, and then not being able to express a view on Johnson’s lies to Parliament because it might annoy a section of your party is a demonstration of profound weakness. That’s the main takeaway from yesterday’s events - Sunak is not leading the country, he is trying to manage Tory MPs and members.
On the betting odds, they look about right, with one exception: Uxbridge. The Tories have a better than 10% chance. If they can turn the vote into one about Khan and the ULEZ extension, they might well spring a surprise. I’d make it 65/35 Labour right now.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
Is this intended to be for what they did as PM, or across the whole of their political career?
It looks like a really weak list of leaders when you just write it out.
But Thatcher/Blair/Major/Cameron must have been 70%+ so we’ve done ok as a whole
Major and Cameron 70%+ looks generous.
To be clear was meaning that 70% of the time we’ve been led by 1 of those 4 all of whom were ok as PM regardless of your views on their politics
Ah right. I misunderstood. But were they OK? David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. (Boris is sui generis; Liz Truss barely in office.) Cameron lost Europe and would have lost Scotland barring last minute interventions from Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson. Austerity was at best misguided; NHS reorganisation disastrous; UC undermined by his own Chancellor; student loans; supporting house price inflation. Worst of all, though, is putting his thumb on the scales of democracy.
Cameron was mediocre at best (although the coalition was reasonable). But I was meaning in terms of being credible as PM.
However you can’t exclude Johnson and Truss because they don’t count… while Brown did huge underlying damage during his time at the top
Bit like the Tories banging on about the woke, it just aint a priority for the voters.
But it makes people angry. I heard one of the BBC commentators saying the ball had gone down to third.. fortunately the Ozzie guy doesn't stand for such nonsense and uses the correct terminology third MAN.
Fewer than one in five voters believe that Scotland’s constitutional future should be decided by a de facto referendum, new polling has shown.
The research reveals widespread rejection of the idea that the results of people electing representatives to either Westminster or Holyrood could be seen as proxy votes for Scottish independence.
The Panelbase poll comes as Humza Yousaf said that building a consensus among voters to ensure there is a consistent majority for secession was the only way to break the “logjam” over Scotland’s constitutional future.
Bit like the Tories banging on about the woke, it just aint a priority for the voters.
But it makes people angry. I heard one of the BBC commentators saying the ball had gone down to third.. fortunately the Ozzie guy doesn't stand for such nonsense and uses the correct terminology third MAN.
'Angry' Can we put you down as one of the two percentage ?
So he didn't vote for the recommendations. Well it went through anyway. He's obviously trying to manage an almost unmanageable party. What else do people expect? I'd suggest history will likely be kinder to him than Johnson, Truss, May or Cameron.
Yes. The Tory party is completely ungovernable. An almost impossible coalition of MPs elected in 2019, representing and wanting completely opposing things. An IQ reduced to pitiful levels by the addition of mince like Gullis and Anderson. Multiple aggressive competing factions - the ERG, BBB, Trussites. A country on its knees and sinking further into the mud.
An impossible job for any Tory PM to hold together, but Sunak is doing what he can to at least try.
eg Boris Johnsin can say, of his 2019 election, he Got Brexit Done.
I thought it was blocked by the blob...
No, we have definitely Brexited, as 7,398 articles in the Guardian about New Brexit Tariffs on Semi Processed Cashew Crisps, or the 19 day long queues for Brits at Malaga airport, constantly tell us
So, what is Starmer's equivalent? What is his USP? What will he get done? Drastically repair or reform? I cannot see it as of now. but I am - genuinely - happy to be schooled. This guy, after all, is likely to be our PM for four-five years, minimum
354 MPs for the Boris report, so a narrow majority in favour but most Tory MPs abstained and did not vote for it and 7 Conservative MPs even voted against the report
354 to 7 a narrow majority only in your mind
Abstentions are exactly that and the 7 against are dinosaurs
It doesn't reflect particularly well on the abstainers either.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
Is this intended to be for what they did as PM, or across the whole of their political career?
It looks like a really weak list of leaders when you just write it out.
But Thatcher/Blair/Major/Cameron must have been 70%+ so we’ve done ok as a whole
Major and Cameron 70%+ looks generous.
To be clear was meaning that 70% of the time we’ve been led by 1 of those 4 all of whom were ok as PM regardless of your views on their politics
Ah right. I misunderstood. But were they OK? David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. (Boris is sui generis; Liz Truss barely in office.) Cameron lost Europe and would have lost Scotland barring last minute interventions from Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson. Austerity was at best misguided; NHS reorganisation disastrous; UC undermined by his own Chancellor; student loans; supporting house price inflation. Worst of all, though, is putting his thumb on the scales of democracy.
Cameron was mediocre at best (although the coalition was reasonable). But I was meaning in terms of being credible as PM.
However you can’t exclude Johnson and Truss because they don’t count… while Brown did huge underlying damage during his time at the top
I'm excluding Truss because she was barely there, and Boris because his failures were more human than political so he is hard to measure on the same scale as all our other Prime Ministers; he is in a category of his own. Nor do I accept that Brown caused "huge underlying damage"'; that is a charge that, with hindsight, might be better laid against Mrs Thatcher, as for instance even some on the right have done recently in regard to undermining social housing. Whether that is entirely fair, given the length of time her successors could have altered things, is moot. No, Cameron is the worst.
So he didn't vote for the recommendations. Well it went through anyway. He's obviously trying to manage an almost unmanageable party. What else do people expect? I'd suggest history will likely be kinder to him than Johnson, Truss, May or Cameron.
Yes. The Tory party is completely ungovernable. An almost impossible coalition of MPs elected in 2019, representing and wanting completely opposing things. An IQ reduced to pitiful levels by the addition of mince like Gullis and Anderson. Multiple aggressive competing factions - the ERG, BBB, Trussites. A country on its knees and sinking further into the mud.
An impossible job for any Tory PM to hold together, but Sunak is doing what he can to at least try.
Yep, his priority is managing his party, not leading his country. His weakness means he has no other choice. No-one is afraid of him. Yesterday’s events just reinforce that point.
eg Boris Johnsin can say, of his 2019 election, he Got Brexit Done.
I thought it was blocked by the blob...
No, we have definitely Brexited, as 7,398 articles in the Guardian about New Brexit Tariffs on Semi Processed Cashew Crisps, or the 19 day long queues for Brits at Malaga airport, constantly tell us
So, what is Starmer's equivalent? What is his USP? What will he get done? Drastically repair or reform? I cannot see it as of now. but I am - genuinely - happy to be schooled. This guy, after all, is likely to be our PM for four-five years, minimum
Aren't you supposed to be the super-forecaster on here ?
354 MPs for the Boris report, so a narrow majority in favour but most Tory MPs abstained and did not vote for it and 7 Conservative MPs even voted against the report
354 to 7 a narrow majority only in your mind
Abstentions are exactly that and the 7 against are dinosaurs
It doesn't reflect particularly well on the abstainers either.
Bunch of cowards
I am going to give rare - likely unique - credit to my MP David Duguid for voting Yes. He did a Good Thing.
354 MPs for the Boris report, so a narrow majority in favour but most Tory MPs abstained and did not vote for it and 7 Conservative MPs even voted against the report
354 to 7 a narrow majority only in your mind
Abstentions are exactly that and the 7 against are dinosaurs
It doesn't reflect particularly well on the abstainers either.
Sunak should have voted but I understand Starmer abstained as well which is strange
Were they paired?
Pair of cowardly shitbags. Starmer was lying up in Scotland to avoid voting.
354 MPs for the Boris report, so a narrow majority in favour but most Tory MPs abstained and did not vote for it and 7 Conservative MPs even voted against the report
354 to 7 a narrow majority only in your mind
Abstentions are exactly that and the 7 against are dinosaurs
It doesn't reflect particularly well on the abstainers either.
Sunak should have voted but I understand Starmer abstained as well which is strange
Were they paired?
Pair of cowardly shitbags. Starmer was lying up in Scotland to avoid voting.
So the tory Right on here are dismissing the partygate report/debate as "a sideshow for political obsessives." Apparently "it doesn't matter to people."
I said that. I am neither a Tory nor right wing. I vote Labour in General Elections. I have Voted Tory once in my life, for a good local councillor who did alot for the ward.
And, yes, that is my experience and I stand by it.
People are far more concerned about cost of living, mortgages, food pricing etc etc. Something you conveniently snipped.
You are an idiot for seeing everyone who disagrees with your worldview as right wing Tories.
354 MPs for the Boris report, so a narrow majority in favour but most Tory MPs abstained and did not vote for it and 7 Conservative MPs even voted against the report
354 to 7 a narrow majority only in your mind
Abstentions are exactly that and the 7 against are dinosaurs
It doesn't reflect particularly well on the abstainers either.
Bunch of cowards
I am going to give rare - likely unique - credit to my MP David Duguid for voting Yes. He did a Good Thing.
I am in the same emotionally difficult position re Nick Gibb.
Given the stuff written about Bairstow, the facts show Foakes a worse keeper than Bairstow.
Bairstow is also an altogether better keeper than his tally of misses this Test suggests. Indeed, in their Test careers Bairstow has taken 88 per cent of catching chances, according to CricViz, while Foakes is recorded as taking only 82 per cent. In England, Bairstow has taken 90 per cent and Foakes 87 per cent.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
Is this intended to be for what they did as PM, or across the whole of their political career?
It looks like a really weak list of leaders when you just write it out.
But Thatcher/Blair/Major/Cameron must have been 70%+ so we’ve done ok as a whole
Major and Cameron 70%+ looks generous.
To be clear was meaning that 70% of the time we’ve been led by 1 of those 4 all of whom were ok as PM regardless of your views on their politics
Ah right. I misunderstood. But were they OK? David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. (Boris is sui generis; Liz Truss barely in office.) Cameron lost Europe and would have lost Scotland barring last minute interventions from Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson. Austerity was at best misguided; NHS reorganisation disastrous; UC undermined by his own Chancellor; student loans; supporting house price inflation. Worst of all, though, is putting his thumb on the scales of democracy.
Cameron was mediocre at best (although the coalition was reasonable). But I was meaning in terms of being credible as PM.
However you can’t exclude Johnson and Truss because they don’t count… while Brown did huge underlying damage during his time at the top
I'm excluding Truss because she was barely there, and Boris because his failures were more human than political so he is hard to measure on the same scale as all our other Prime Ministers; he is in a category of his own. Nor do I accept that Brown caused "huge underlying damage"'; that is a charge that, with hindsight, might be better laid against Mrs Thatcher, as for instance even some on the right have done recently in regard to undermining social housing. Whether that is entirely fair, given the length of time her successors could have altered things, is moot. No, Cameron is the worst.
Brown built in massive structural overspending, hollowed out the pension system and abused PFI to the point of destruction. He did more to undermine the UK’s long term economic strength than anyone else.
And it’s methodologically invalid to say Cameron’s the worst because I’ve excluded all the others who are even less good
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
Is this intended to be for what they did as PM, or across the whole of their political career?
It looks like a really weak list of leaders when you just write it out.
But Thatcher/Blair/Major/Cameron must have been 70%+ so we’ve done ok as a whole
Major and Cameron 70%+ looks generous.
To be clear was meaning that 70% of the time we’ve been led by 1 of those 4 all of whom were ok as PM regardless of your views on their politics
Ah right. I misunderstood. But were they OK? David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. (Boris is sui generis; Liz Truss barely in office.) Cameron lost Europe and would have lost Scotland barring last minute interventions from Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson. Austerity was at best misguided; NHS reorganisation disastrous; UC undermined by his own Chancellor; student loans; supporting house price inflation. Worst of all, though, is putting his thumb on the scales of democracy.
Cameron was mediocre at best (although the coalition was reasonable). But I was meaning in terms of being credible as PM.
However you can’t exclude Johnson and Truss because they don’t count… while Brown did huge underlying damage during his time at the top
I'm excluding Truss because she was barely there, and Boris because his failures were more human than political so he is hard to measure on the same scale as all our other Prime Ministers; he is in a category of his own. Nor do I accept that Brown caused "huge underlying damage"'; that is a charge that, with hindsight, might be better laid against Mrs Thatcher, as for instance even some on the right have done recently in regard to undermining social housing. Whether that is entirely fair, given the length of time her successors could have altered things, is moot. No, Cameron is the worst.
Given the stuff written about Bairstow, the facts show Foakes a worse keeper than Bairstow.
Bairstow is also an altogether better keeper than his tally of misses this Test suggests. Indeed, in their Test careers Bairstow has taken 88 per cent of catching chances, according to CricViz, while Foakes is recorded as taking only 82 per cent. In England, Bairstow has taken 90 per cent and Foakes 87 per cent.
Keeping isn’t just catching chances. Stumping are crucial too. And I think Foakes gets closer to more chances than Bairstow (depending how a catch chance is determined) as he has greater reach. Gut feel, often wrong, is that Foakes is a better keeper. (Should add, that I have been a keeper for 35 years in village cricket).
Best / Worst PM is impossibly subjective, and some of the attempts so far have been painfully biased. This isn't "did I like them personally" or "did I agree with their politics".
Best PM of this era was Thatcher. I don't like a lot of what she did, but she transformed this country in a clear and decisive manner with a vision which completely redrew the political map.
Next is Blair - another redrawing of the political map, transformed Northern Ireland, reset international relations.
Next is Cameron. Faced down the constitutional time bombs of Scotland and Europe. Won one, lost one - and had the grace to take ownership of losing and immediately quit. Did so whilst running a coalition - so having to hold his own party together and co-operation from another.
Next is Brown. Rode out the global financial crisis in a way that didn't completely cripple the economy, showed creativity and leadership that Obama etc needed. Doing so whilst leading a party tired of being in office and despite his own personal flaws.
Next is Major. Winning an election in 1992 by transforming how politics was done with his soapbox. Started the journey to peace in NI, got Maastricht through despite a rebellious party.
Next is May - handed the ultimate hospital pass from Cameron she tried to do the impossible until she broke her own government.
Next is Sunak- a provisional position as he's relatively new in office and still has time not yet served we cannot judge. Isn't showing May's backbone, and appears to have inherited some of the crayon politics and outright lies of the Johnson era despite claiming the opposite.
Next is Truss - comedically bad, with her first massive play utterly demolished by the markets. Swiftly and mercifully removed from office by the party who just put her in.
Last is Johnson. Burned brightly with a transformational election win which once again redrew the political map, but then shat the bed over and over and over again. Catastrophic EU deal and international relations so poor that our allies are too busy laughing at us to even feel the need to say no to what we want. A liar, a crook and a whore. The DLG of the 21st Century.
Good morning from what must be the largest official concentration of professional and Twitter remainers in years, the Trade Unlocked event in NEC organised by Best for Britain.
Already from my hotel breakfast table I can see large chunks of trade and journalistic Twitterati. My panel is on “Brexit benefits” which I think is a well meaning but probably fatally flawed attempt at looking for regulatory divergence opportunities. With someone from the fishing industry who I subconsciously imagine will be wearing a sowester and sporting a long shanky beard but probably won’t be.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
Is this intended to be for what they did as PM, or across the whole of their political career?
It looks like a really weak list of leaders when you just write it out.
But Thatcher/Blair/Major/Cameron must have been 70%+ so we’ve done ok as a whole
Major and Cameron 70%+ looks generous.
To be clear was meaning that 70% of the time we’ve been led by 1 of those 4 all of whom were ok as PM regardless of your views on their politics
Ah right. I misunderstood. But were they OK? David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. (Boris is sui generis; Liz Truss barely in office.) Cameron lost Europe and would have lost Scotland barring last minute interventions from Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson. Austerity was at best misguided; NHS reorganisation disastrous; UC undermined by his own Chancellor; student loans; supporting house price inflation. Worst of all, though, is putting his thumb on the scales of democracy.
Cameron was mediocre at best (although the coalition was reasonable). But I was meaning in terms of being credible as PM.
However you can’t exclude Johnson and Truss because they don’t count… while Brown did huge underlying damage during his time at the top
I'm excluding Truss because she was barely there, and Boris because his failures were more human than political so he is hard to measure on the same scale as all our other Prime Ministers; he is in a category of his own. Nor do I accept that Brown caused "huge underlying damage"'; that is a charge that, with hindsight, might be better laid against Mrs Thatcher, as for instance even some on the right have done recently in regard to undermining social housing. Whether that is entirely fair, given the length of time her successors could have altered things, is moot. No, Cameron is the worst.
Brown built in massive structural overspending, hollowed out the pension system and abused PFI to the point of destruction. He did more to undermine the UK’s long term economic strength than anyone else.
And it’s methodologically invalid to say Cameron’s the worst because I’ve excluded all the others who are even less good
Regarding Brown and PFI. You refer to Brown as chancellor surely, not as PM? The PFI abuse was done under Blair, not after Brown became PM. But if that is your shining issue then Cameron would have to be ranked lower, as PFI was massively ramped up by chancellor Osborne.
So he didn't vote for the recommendations. Well it went through anyway. He's obviously trying to manage an almost unmanageable party. What else do people expect? I'd suggest history will likely be kinder to him than Johnson, Truss, May or Cameron.
Yes. The Tory party is completely ungovernable. An almost impossible coalition of MPs elected in 2019, representing and wanting completely opposing things. An IQ reduced to pitiful levels by the addition of mince like Gullis and Anderson. Multiple aggressive competing factions - the ERG, BBB, Trussites. A country on its knees and sinking further into the mud.
An impossible job for any Tory PM to hold together, but Sunak is doing what he can to at least try.
Yep, his priority is managing his party, not leading his country. His weakness means he has no other choice. No-one is afraid of him. Yesterday’s events just reinforce that point.
And if the Conservative party is leading Sunak, not Sunak leading the Conservative party, and general elections are won on leader ratings?
Then whose leader ratings count - Sunak's or the Conservative parties?
In truth, the answer is probably still Sunak's, but the more party management like this he has to do, the more the party is in charge, the more the party's ratings will seep into and poison his own personal ratings.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
Is this intended to be for what they did as PM, or across the whole of their political career?
It looks like a really weak list of leaders when you just write it out.
But Thatcher/Blair/Major/Cameron must have been 70%+ so we’ve done ok as a whole
Major and Cameron 70%+ looks generous.
To be clear was meaning that 70% of the time we’ve been led by 1 of those 4 all of whom were ok as PM regardless of your views on their politics
Ah right. I misunderstood. But were they OK? David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. (Boris is sui generis; Liz Truss barely in office.) Cameron lost Europe and would have lost Scotland barring last minute interventions from Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson. Austerity was at best misguided; NHS reorganisation disastrous; UC undermined by his own Chancellor; student loans; supporting house price inflation. Worst of all, though, is putting his thumb on the scales of democracy.
Cameron was mediocre at best (although the coalition was reasonable). But I was meaning in terms of being credible as PM.
However you can’t exclude Johnson and Truss because they don’t count… while Brown did huge underlying damage during his time at the top
I'm excluding Truss because she was barely there, and Boris because his failures were more human than political so he is hard to measure on the same scale as all our other Prime Ministers; he is in a category of his own. Nor do I accept that Brown caused "huge underlying damage"'; that is a charge that, with hindsight, might be better laid against Mrs Thatcher, as for instance even some on the right have done recently in regard to undermining social housing. Whether that is entirely fair, given the length of time her successors could have altered things, is moot. No, Cameron is the worst.
Brown built in massive structural overspending, hollowed out the pension system and abused PFI to the point of destruction. He did more to undermine the UK’s long term economic strength than anyone else.
And it’s methodologically invalid to say Cameron’s the worst because I’ve excluded all the others who are even less good
Regarding Brown and PFI. You refer to Brown as chancellor surely, not as PM? The PFI abuse was done under Blair, not after Brown became PM. But if that is your shining issue then Cameron would have to be ranked lower, as PFI was massively ramped up by chancellor Osborne.
I wasn’t really distinguishing between brown as chancellor and PM - more his leadership role in the economy. It’s false to do otherwise.
Do you have stats on Osborne and PFI? It was schools’n’hospitals (unsuitable for PFI) that Brown did which were so damaging. Osborne made plenty of mistakes - like securitising student loans - but don’t think he did a huge amount of PFI?
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
Is this intended to be for what they did as PM, or across the whole of their political career?
It looks like a really weak list of leaders when you just write it out.
But Thatcher/Blair/Major/Cameron must have been 70%+ so we’ve done ok as a whole
Major and Cameron 70%+ looks generous.
To be clear was meaning that 70% of the time we’ve been led by 1 of those 4 all of whom were ok as PM regardless of your views on their politics
Ah right. I misunderstood. But were they OK? David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. (Boris is sui generis; Liz Truss barely in office.) Cameron lost Europe and would have lost Scotland barring last minute interventions from Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson. Austerity was at best misguided; NHS reorganisation disastrous; UC undermined by his own Chancellor; student loans; supporting house price inflation. Worst of all, though, is putting his thumb on the scales of democracy.
Cameron was mediocre at best (although the coalition was reasonable). But I was meaning in terms of being credible as PM.
However you can’t exclude Johnson and Truss because they don’t count… while Brown did huge underlying damage during his time at the top
I'm excluding Truss because she was barely there, and Boris because his failures were more human than political so he is hard to measure on the same scale as all our other Prime Ministers; he is in a category of his own. Nor do I accept that Brown caused "huge underlying damage"'; that is a charge that, with hindsight, might be better laid against Mrs Thatcher, as for instance even some on the right have done recently in regard to undermining social housing. Whether that is entirely fair, given the length of time her successors could have altered things, is moot. No, Cameron is the worst.
Brown built in massive structural overspending, hollowed out the pension system and abused PFI to the point of destruction. He did more to undermine the UK’s long term economic strength than anyone else.
And it’s methodologically invalid to say Cameron’s the worst because I’ve excluded all the others who are even less good
Even if we accept what you say about Brown. and I do not, that was as Chancellor not Prime Minister.
Truss was PM for just seven weeks, and that includes time to choose her replacement and to bury the Queen. Boris is qualitatively different from the others, in a class of his own, and I've given a list of reasons Cameron was worst.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
Is this intended to be for what they did as PM, or across the whole of their political career?
It looks like a really weak list of leaders when you just write it out.
But Thatcher/Blair/Major/Cameron must have been 70%+ so we’ve done ok as a whole
Major and Cameron 70%+ looks generous.
To be clear was meaning that 70% of the time we’ve been led by 1 of those 4 all of whom were ok as PM regardless of your views on their politics
Ah right. I misunderstood. But were they OK? David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. (Boris is sui generis; Liz Truss barely in office.) Cameron lost Europe and would have lost Scotland barring last minute interventions from Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson. Austerity was at best misguided; NHS reorganisation disastrous; UC undermined by his own Chancellor; student loans; supporting house price inflation. Worst of all, though, is putting his thumb on the scales of democracy.
Cameron was mediocre at best (although the coalition was reasonable). But I was meaning in terms of being credible as PM.
However you can’t exclude Johnson and Truss because they don’t count… while Brown did huge underlying damage during his time at the top
I'm excluding Truss because she was barely there, and Boris because his failures were more human than political so he is hard to measure on the same scale as all our other Prime Ministers; he is in a category of his own. Nor do I accept that Brown caused "huge underlying damage"'; that is a charge that, with hindsight, might be better laid against Mrs Thatcher, as for instance even some on the right have done recently in regard to undermining social housing. Whether that is entirely fair, given the length of time her successors could have altered things, is moot. No, Cameron is the worst.
Brown built in massive structural overspending, hollowed out the pension system and abused PFI to the point of destruction. He did more to undermine the UK’s long term economic strength than anyone else.
And it’s methodologically invalid to say Cameron’s the worst because I’ve excluded all the others who are even less good
Even if we accept what you say about Brown. and I do not, that was as Chancellor not Prime Minister.
Truss was PM for just seven weeks, and that includes time to choose her replacement and to bury the Queen. Boris is qualitatively different from the others, in a class of his own, and I've given a list of reasons Cameron was worst.
Given the stuff written about Bairstow, the facts show Foakes a worse keeper than Bairstow.
Bairstow is also an altogether better keeper than his tally of misses this Test suggests. Indeed, in their Test careers Bairstow has taken 88 per cent of catching chances, according to CricViz, while Foakes is recorded as taking only 82 per cent. In England, Bairstow has taken 90 per cent and Foakes 87 per cent.
Keeping isn’t just catching chances. Stumping are crucial too. And I think Foakes gets closer to more chances than Bairstow (depending how a catch chance is determined) as he has greater reach. Gut feel, often wrong, is that Foakes is a better keeper. (Should add, that I have been a keeper for 35 years in village cricket).
Foakes has also done a lot more keeping standing up to spinners and medium pacers in the subcontinent, where Bairstow has only played four matches as keeper.
Best / Worst PM is impossibly subjective, and some of the attempts so far have been painfully biased. This isn't "did I like them personally" or "did I agree with their politics".
Best PM of this era was Thatcher. I don't like a lot of what she did, but she transformed this country in a clear and decisive manner with a vision which completely redrew the political map.
Next is Blair - another redrawing of the political map, transformed Northern Ireland, reset international relations.
Next is Cameron. Faced down the constitutional time bombs of Scotland and Europe. Won one, lost one - and had the grace to take ownership of losing and immediately quit. Did so whilst running a coalition - so having to hold his own party together and co-operation from another.
Next is Brown. Rode out the global financial crisis in a way that didn't completely cripple the economy, showed creativity and leadership that Obama etc needed. Doing so whilst leading a party tired of being in office and despite his own personal flaws.
Next is Major. Winning an election in 1992 by transforming how politics was done with his soapbox. Started the journey to peace in NI, got Maastricht through despite a rebellious party.
Next is May - handed the ultimate hospital pass from Cameron she tried to do the impossible until she broke her own government.
Next is Sunak- a provisional position as he's relatively new in office and still has time not yet served we cannot judge. Isn't showing May's backbone, and appears to have inherited some of the crayon politics and outright lies of the Johnson era despite claiming the opposite.
Next is Truss - comedically bad, with her first massive play utterly demolished by the markets. Swiftly and mercifully removed from office by the party who just put her in.
Last is Johnson. Burned brightly with a transformational election win which once again redrew the political map, but then shat the bed over and over and over again. Catastrophic EU deal and international relations so poor that our allies are too busy laughing at us to even feel the need to say no to what we want. A liar, a crook and a whore. The DLG of the 21st Century.
So he didn't vote for the recommendations. Well it went through anyway. He's obviously trying to manage an almost unmanageable party. What else do people expect? I'd suggest history will likely be kinder to him than Johnson, Truss, May or Cameron.
Yes. The Tory party is completely ungovernable. An almost impossible coalition of MPs elected in 2019, representing and wanting completely opposing things. An IQ reduced to pitiful levels by the addition of mince like Gullis and Anderson. Multiple aggressive competing factions - the ERG, BBB, Trussites. A country on its knees and sinking further into the mud.
An impossible job for any Tory PM to hold together, but Sunak is doing what he can to at least try.
Yep, his priority is managing his party, not leading his country. His weakness means he has no other choice. No-one is afraid of him. Yesterday’s events just reinforce that point.
And if the Conservative party is leading Sunak, not Sunak leading the Conservative party, and general elections are won on leader ratings?
Then whose leader ratings count - Sunak's or the Conservative parties?
In truth, the answer is probably still Sunak's, but the more party management like this he has to do, the more the party is in charge, the more the party's ratings will seep into and poison his own personal ratings.
Early in the Sunak era, there were comments on the remarkably big gap between the ratings of Sunak and those of the Conservative Party.
There were always two ways that could go. The glimmer of hope for the government was that Rishi's sparkle might drag the reputation of the party up. The fear was that the Conservatives as a whole would drag Rishi down.
It increasingly looks like the second of those is playing out. It was always more likely, but the surprise is how much Rishi has gaffer taped himself to the shipwreck.
Just looking out of my windows across to Birmingham.
I will be very surprised indeed if there is any play before lunch today.
Good news for Bairstow fans as that means he won't fluff any chances before the afternoon.
Fingers crossed that, if we do get any play in between the rain, that England will be able to take as much advantage as the Aussies did on Sunday afternoon.
Given the stuff written about Bairstow, the facts show Foakes a worse keeper than Bairstow.
Bairstow is also an altogether better keeper than his tally of misses this Test suggests. Indeed, in their Test careers Bairstow has taken 88 per cent of catching chances, according to CricViz, while Foakes is recorded as taking only 82 per cent. In England, Bairstow has taken 90 per cent and Foakes 87 per cent.
Keeping isn’t just catching chances. Stumping are crucial too. And I think Foakes gets closer to more chances than Bairstow (depending how a catch chance is determined) as he has greater reach. Gut feel, often wrong, is that Foakes is a better keeper. (Should add, that I have been a keeper for 35 years in village cricket).
Foakes has also done a lot more keeping standing up to spinners and medium pacers in the subcontinent, where Bairstow has only played four matches as keeper.
Yes, this is the crucial point. If we're going to play on these types of pitches, then we need a spinner whose fingers don't disintegrate and a proper wicket keeper.
On the spinner front, they said in commentary that only 10% of wickets in the County Championship this season have been taken by spinners and made out this is why they had to recall Ali. But surely that stat is skewed by the fact that they're playing on green tops with the medium pacers skittling the opposition out.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Fun game.
My list would be.
Thatcher Cameron Major Johnson Blair Sunak May Truss Brown
And yes, I wanted Johnson out before he left and would not want him back, but I'd say the same to everyone I ranked below him too.
I think you have to break it down by term:
Blair 1 Cameron 1 Major 1 Blair 3 Thatcher 2 Brown 1 Major 2 Thatcher 1 Blair 2 Thatcher 3 May 1 May 2 Sunak 1 Johnson 1 Truss 1
Pedantically, you need Cameron and Johnson 2s.
Cameron term number two was importantly different; I reckon that Cameron and the coalition brought out the best in each other. It was once he had a single party majority it all went wrong.
Johnson just was a number two before, during and after his premiership.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
Is this intended to be for what they did as PM, or across the whole of their political career?
It looks like a really weak list of leaders when you just write it out.
But Thatcher/Blair/Major/Cameron must have been 70%+ so we’ve done ok as a whole
Major and Cameron 70%+ looks generous.
To be clear was meaning that 70% of the time we’ve been led by 1 of those 4 all of whom were ok as PM regardless of your views on their politics
Ah right. I misunderstood. But were they OK? David Cameron was our worst Prime Minister since Lord North. (Boris is sui generis; Liz Truss barely in office.) Cameron lost Europe and would have lost Scotland barring last minute interventions from Gordon Brown and Ruth Davidson. Austerity was at best misguided; NHS reorganisation disastrous; UC undermined by his own Chancellor; student loans; supporting house price inflation. Worst of all, though, is putting his thumb on the scales of democracy.
Cameron was mediocre at best (although the coalition was reasonable). But I was meaning in terms of being credible as PM.
However you can’t exclude Johnson and Truss because they don’t count… while Brown did huge underlying damage during his time at the top
I'm excluding Truss because she was barely there, and Boris because his failures were more human than political so he is hard to measure on the same scale as all our other Prime Ministers; he is in a category of his own. Nor do I accept that Brown caused "huge underlying damage"'; that is a charge that, with hindsight, might be better laid against Mrs Thatcher, as for instance even some on the right have done recently in regard to undermining social housing. Whether that is entirely fair, given the length of time her successors could have altered things, is moot. No, Cameron is the worst.
Brown built in massive structural overspending, hollowed out the pension system and abused PFI to the point of destruction. He did more to undermine the UK’s long term economic strength than anyone else.
And it’s methodologically invalid to say Cameron’s the worst because I’ve excluded all the others who are even less good
Even if we accept what you say about Brown. and I do not, that was as Chancellor not Prime Minister.
Truss was PM for just seven weeks, and that includes time to choose her replacement and to bury the Queen. Boris is qualitatively different from the others, in a class of his own, and I've given a list of reasons Cameron was worst.
So Boris was worse then? We are making progress.
No, Boris was so different that he cannot be compared on the same scale. Cameron was worst.
Given the stuff written about Bairstow, the facts show Foakes a worse keeper than Bairstow.
Bairstow is also an altogether better keeper than his tally of misses this Test suggests. Indeed, in their Test careers Bairstow has taken 88 per cent of catching chances, according to CricViz, while Foakes is recorded as taking only 82 per cent. In England, Bairstow has taken 90 per cent and Foakes 87 per cent.
Keeping isn’t just catching chances. Stumping are crucial too. And I think Foakes gets closer to more chances than Bairstow (depending how a catch chance is determined) as he has greater reach. Gut feel, often wrong, is that Foakes is a better keeper. (Should add, that I have been a keeper for 35 years in village cricket).
Foakes has also done a lot more keeping standing up to spinners and medium pacers in the subcontinent, where Bairstow has only played four matches as keeper.
Yes, this is the crucial point. If we're going to play on these types of pitches, then we need a spinner whose fingers don't disintegrate and a proper wicket keeper.
On the spinner front, they said in commentary that only 10% of wickets in the County Championship this season have been taken by spinners and made out this is why they had to recall Ali. But surely that stat is skewed by the fact that they're playing on green tops with the medium pacers skittling the opposition out.
I think Bairstow is generally a reasonable keeper, but it's undeniable he's had a shocking match with the gloves. I do not think he is as good as Foakes, but in his defence very few keepers are.
Just looking out of my windows across to Birmingham.
I will be very surprised indeed if there is any play before lunch today.
Good news for Bairstow fans as that means he won't fluff any chances before the afternoon.
Fingers crossed that, if we do get any play in between the rain, that England will be able to take as much advantage as the Aussies did on Sunday afternoon.
I would be surprised if we get more than 40 overs, so if Australia want to win they will have to play some shots.
If the ball is swinging around, that might be risky.
Equally, I suspect that keeping the ball dry so it will swing will be pretty tough with this amount of moisture around.
Best / Worst PM is impossibly subjective, and some of the attempts so far have been painfully biased. This isn't "did I like them personally" or "did I agree with their politics".
Best PM of this era was Thatcher. I don't like a lot of what she did, but she transformed this country in a clear and decisive manner with a vision which completely redrew the political map.
Next is Blair - another redrawing of the political map, transformed Northern Ireland, reset international relations.
Next is Cameron. Faced down the constitutional time bombs of Scotland and Europe. Won one, lost one - and had the grace to take ownership of losing and immediately quit. Did so whilst running a coalition - so having to hold his own party together and co-operation from another.
Next is Brown. Rode out the global financial crisis in a way that didn't completely cripple the economy, showed creativity and leadership that Obama etc needed. Doing so whilst leading a party tired of being in office and despite his own personal flaws.
Next is Major. Winning an election in 1992 by transforming how politics was done with his soapbox. Started the journey to peace in NI, got Maastricht through despite a rebellious party.
Next is May - handed the ultimate hospital pass from Cameron she tried to do the impossible until she broke her own government.
Next is Sunak- a provisional position as he's relatively new in office and still has time not yet served we cannot judge. Isn't showing May's backbone, and appears to have inherited some of the crayon politics and outright lies of the Johnson era despite claiming the opposite.
Next is Truss - comedically bad, with her first massive play utterly demolished by the markets. Swiftly and mercifully removed from office by the party who just put her in.
Last is Johnson. Burned brightly with a transformational election win which once again redrew the political map, but then shat the bed over and over and over again. Catastrophic EU deal and international relations so poor that our allies are too busy laughing at us to even feel the need to say no to what we want. A liar, a crook and a whore. The DLG of the 21st Century.
Probably my order too, although I am loathe to place Thatch top on ideological grounds.
Without Iraq, Blair would have been head and shoulders above them all, but as we can't pretend Iraq didn't happen, second is probably higher than he deserves. Same goes for Brown in third. But then the also-rans didn't exactly cover themselves in glory either.
Without question Johnson is the worst of the lot and by a long haul. Even worse than Truss's ten minutes of chaos.
My favourite list of the day is Barty's comedy offering with Johnson just behind Thatch. Major and Cameron.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Surely if you are giving Blair a free pass over Iraq, it is only fair you allow Cameron the EURef. So that leaves Cameron somewhere around Major and Brown. Oh and Johnson is worse even than Truss.
Not giving Blair a free pass over Iraq. Putting him at the top of the table because his achievements were greater than the others. Cameron has little that compensates for Brexit and austerity.
354 MPs for the Boris report, so a narrow majority in favour but most Tory MPs abstained and did not vote for it and 7 Conservative MPs even voted against the report
354 to 7 a narrow majority only in your mind
Abstentions are exactly that and the 7 against are dinosaurs
It doesn't reflect particularly well on the abstainers either.
Sunak should have voted but I understand Starmer abstained as well which is strange
Were they paired?
Pair of cowardly shitbags. Starmer was lying up in Scotland to avoid voting.
Unfair. I know BigG always says the worst about SKS (well, not quite the worst - he doesn't claim that SKS kills and eats nice retired donkeys). But SKS *did* vote yesterday, once he'd nipped back from lecturing the natives.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Surely if you are giving Blair a free pass over Iraq, it is only fair you allow Cameron the EURef. So that leaves Cameron somewhere around Major and Brown. Oh and Johnson is worse even than Truss.
Not giving Blair a free pass over Iraq. Putting him at the top of the table because his achievements were greater than the others. Cameron has little that compensates for Brexit and austerity.
Chopping Sure Start was pretty crass on Cameron's part.
Best / Worst PM is impossibly subjective, and some of the attempts so far have been painfully biased. This isn't "did I like them personally" or "did I agree with their politics".
Best PM of this era was Thatcher. I don't like a lot of what she did, but she transformed this country in a clear and decisive manner with a vision which completely redrew the political map.
Next is Blair - another redrawing of the political map, transformed Northern Ireland, reset international relations.
Next is Cameron. Faced down the constitutional time bombs of Scotland and Europe. Won one, lost one - and had the grace to take ownership of losing and immediately quit. Did so whilst running a coalition - so having to hold his own party together and co-operation from another.
Next is Brown. Rode out the global financial crisis in a way that didn't completely cripple the economy, showed creativity and leadership that Obama etc needed. Doing so whilst leading a party tired of being in office and despite his own personal flaws.
Next is Major. Winning an election in 1992 by transforming how politics was done with his soapbox. Started the journey to peace in NI, got Maastricht through despite a rebellious party.
Next is May - handed the ultimate hospital pass from Cameron she tried to do the impossible until she broke her own government.
Next is Sunak- a provisional position as he's relatively new in office and still has time not yet served we cannot judge. Isn't showing May's backbone, and appears to have inherited some of the crayon politics and outright lies of the Johnson era despite claiming the opposite.
Next is Truss - comedically bad, with her first massive play utterly demolished by the markets. Swiftly and mercifully removed from office by the party who just put her in.
Last is Johnson. Burned brightly with a transformational election win which once again redrew the political map, but then shat the bed over and over and over again. Catastrophic EU deal and international relations so poor that our allies are too busy laughing at us to even feel the need to say no to what we want. A liar, a crook and a whore. The DLG of the 21st Century.
Probably my order too, although I am loathe to place Thatch top on ideological grounds.
Without Iraq, Blair would have been head and shoulders above them all, but as we can't pretend Iraq didn't happen, second is probably higher than he deserves. Same goes for Brown in third. But then the also-rans didn't exactly cover themselves in glory either.
Without question Johnson is the worst of the lot and by a long haul. Even worse than Truss's ten minutes of chaos.
My favourite list of the day is Barty's comedy offering with Johnson just behind Thatch. Major and Cameron.
I would place Blair ahead of Thatcher because broadly he made Britain into a happier place. Thatcher was far too divisive.
Thatcher Blair Major Cameron May Brown Sunak Johnson Truss
You are very kind to Cameron, who I think is the PM whose stock has fallen the most since leaving office.
My list would be
Blair (despite Iraq) Thatcher Major Brown May Sunak Cameron Johnson Truss
Surely if you are giving Blair a free pass over Iraq, it is only fair you allow Cameron the EURef. So that leaves Cameron somewhere around Major and Brown. Oh and Johnson is worse even than Truss.
Not giving Blair a free pass over Iraq. Putting him at the top of the table because his achievements were greater than the others. Cameron has little that compensates for Brexit and austerity.
Chopping Sure Start was pretty crass on Cameron's part.
In my list I have set aside whether I liked their policies or not and look at politics and achievements. Yes, Cameron did all kinds of stupid. But he also did all kinds of brave.
Comments
This place, or rather some of its elderly inhabitants (because that's what they do: slump on here all day long), are completely out of touch with the mood of this country.
There's a reason why #PrivilegesCommitteeReport is treding No.1 right now on twitter, and why caller after caller to recent chat shows have been so upset, and if you don't get that then you don't get what's coming and you will continue to disbelieve the opinion polls: mean Labour lead of last 4 polls = 19.25%. On the morning after the crushing Conservative General Election defeat, do wake up and smell the coffee.
Meanwhile, on topic, the by-election betting is about right except Somerton and Frome, which the LibDems will win handsomely.
Have a nice day. Oh, and do get out and about and start listening to ordinary people. It's how I knew Vote Leave would win and I made a tidy sum as a result.
If we go down that route we are done as a meaningful economy and society - the government can’t insure all personal and private risks
1. Mortgage disaster
2. Cost of Living
3. Partygate which just takes the piss at a time of terrible national and personal suffering
4. Conservative in-fighting. The Boris (Brexit) wing are revolting.
Fewer than one in five voters believe that Scotland’s constitutional future should be decided by a de facto referendum, new polling has shown.
The research reveals widespread rejection of the idea that the results of people electing representatives to either Westminster or Holyrood could be seen as proxy votes for Scottish independence.
The Panelbase poll comes as Humza Yousaf said that building a consensus among voters to ensure there is a consistent majority for secession was the only way to break the “logjam” over Scotland’s constitutional future.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-is-not-a-de-facto-independence-referendum-say-scots-0h970sl76
On the betting odds, they look about right, with one exception: Uxbridge. The Tories have a better than 10% chance. If they can turn the vote into one about Khan and the ULEZ extension, they might well spring a surprise. I’d make it 65/35 Labour right now.
"Is Rishi Sunak in hiding?"
Bob Seely was the poor sap pushed out last night to defend the PM's Commons no-show - and duly got his arse handed to him by Victoria Derbyshire.
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1671034148427890689
Wonder what the figures would be….
However you can’t exclude Johnson and Truss because they don’t count… while Brown did huge underlying damage during his time at the top
No - fewer than one in five of those polled think it "the best way" to decide Scotland's future.
You can only look at the question actually asked.
How many believe it's an acceptable way is an interesting question. Though not that interesting on current polling.
Can we put you down as one of the two percentage ?
An impossible job for any Tory PM to hold together, but Sunak is doing what he can to at least try.
2024’s hidden prize: The upper hand in tax ‘Armageddon’
If either party can claim a full sweep of next year’s elections, it would claim the power to unilaterally shape the code for millions of Americans.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/19/tax-code-2024-elections-00102209
It wouldn't do much for a GOP President, since it's Trump's tax cuts which are expiring, but would give a Democrat a lot of elbow room.
Less bad is a long way from praising the guy. A very long way if the comparator is Truss.
He actually voted.
And, yes, that is my experience and I stand by it.
People are far more concerned about cost of living, mortgages, food pricing etc etc. Something you conveniently snipped.
You are an idiot for seeing everyone who disagrees with your worldview as right wing Tories.
How's your flask ?
Bairstow is also an altogether better keeper than his tally of misses this Test suggests. Indeed, in their Test careers Bairstow has taken 88 per cent of catching chances, according to CricViz, while Foakes is recorded as taking only 82 per cent. In England, Bairstow has taken 90 per cent and Foakes 87 per cent.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2023/06/19/jonny-bairstow-ben-foakes-england-ashes-wicketkeeper-debate/
And it’s methodologically invalid to say Cameron’s the worst because I’ve excluded all the others who are even less good
Gut feel, often wrong, is that Foakes is a better keeper. (Should add, that I have been a keeper for 35 years in village cricket).
Best PM of this era was Thatcher. I don't like a lot of what she did, but she transformed this country in a clear and decisive manner with a vision which completely redrew the political map.
Next is Blair - another redrawing of the political map, transformed Northern Ireland, reset international relations.
Next is Cameron. Faced down the constitutional time bombs of Scotland and Europe. Won one, lost one - and had the grace to take ownership of losing and immediately quit. Did so whilst running a coalition - so having to hold his own party together and co-operation from another.
Next is Brown. Rode out the global financial crisis in a way that didn't completely cripple the economy, showed creativity and leadership that Obama etc needed. Doing so whilst leading a party tired of being in office and despite his own personal flaws.
Next is Major. Winning an election in 1992 by transforming how politics was done with his soapbox. Started the journey to peace in NI, got Maastricht through despite a rebellious party.
Next is May - handed the ultimate hospital pass from Cameron she tried to do the impossible until she broke her own government.
Next is Sunak- a provisional position as he's relatively new in office and still has time not yet served we cannot judge. Isn't showing May's backbone, and appears to have inherited some of the crayon politics and outright lies of the Johnson era despite claiming the opposite.
Next is Truss - comedically bad, with her first massive play utterly demolished by the markets. Swiftly and mercifully removed from office by the party who just put her in.
Last is Johnson. Burned brightly with a transformational election win which once again redrew the political map, but then shat the bed over and over and over again. Catastrophic EU deal and international relations so poor that our allies are too busy laughing at us to even feel the need to say no to what we want. A liar, a crook and a whore. The DLG of the 21st Century.
Already from my hotel breakfast table I can see large chunks of trade and journalistic Twitterati. My panel is on “Brexit benefits” which I think is a well meaning but probably fatally flawed attempt at looking for regulatory divergence opportunities. With someone from the fishing industry who I subconsciously imagine will be wearing a sowester and sporting a long shanky beard but probably won’t be.
Then whose leader ratings count - Sunak's or the Conservative parties?
In truth, the answer is probably still Sunak's, but the more party management like this he has to do, the more the party is in charge, the
more the party's ratings will seep into and poison his own personal ratings.
Blair 1
Cameron 1
Major 1
Blair 3
Thatcher 2
Brown 1
Major 2
Thatcher 1
Blair 2
Thatcher 3
May 1
May 2
Sunak 1
Johnson 1
Truss 1
Do you have stats on Osborne and PFI? It was schools’n’hospitals (unsuitable for PFI) that Brown did which were so damaging. Osborne made plenty of mistakes - like securitising student loans - but don’t think he did a huge amount of PFI?
Edit: first google response
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/27/george-osbornes-pfi-public-spending-projects
Truss was PM for just seven weeks, and that includes time to choose her replacement and to bury the Queen. Boris is qualitatively different from the others, in a class of his own, and I've given a list of reasons Cameron was worst.
I will be very surprised indeed if there is any play before lunch today.
Good news for Bairstow fans as that means he won't fluff any chances before the afternoon.
There were always two ways that could go. The glimmer of hope for the government was that Rishi's sparkle might drag the reputation of the party up. The fear was that the Conservatives as a whole would drag Rishi down.
It increasingly looks like the second of those is playing out. It was always more likely, but the surprise is how much Rishi has gaffer taped himself to the shipwreck.
Still on first coffee of the morning!
On the spinner front, they said in commentary that only 10% of wickets in the County Championship this season have been taken by spinners and made out this is why they had to recall Ali. But surely that stat is skewed by the fact that they're playing on green tops with the medium pacers skittling the opposition out.
Johnson just was a number two before, during and after his premiership.
If the ball is swinging around, that might be risky.
Equally, I suspect that keeping the ball dry so it will swing will be pretty tough with this amount of moisture around.
Should be interesting!
Without Iraq, Blair would have been head and shoulders above them all, but as we can't pretend Iraq didn't happen, second is probably higher than he deserves. Same goes for Brown in third. But then the also-rans didn't exactly cover themselves in glory either.
Without question Johnson is the worst of the lot and by a long haul. Even worse than Truss's ten minutes of chaos.
My favourite list of the day is Barty's comedy offering with Johnson just behind Thatch. Major and Cameron.