They ousted the main conservative party after 16 years in power at a Federal election just 2 years ago.
Does not bode that well for Starmer, albeit most likely on current polls it would be another CDU and SPD coalition given the AfD remain beyond the pale in Germany despite polling over 20% in most polls
Given that Starmer isn't the chancellor of the exchequer and deputy prime minister in the current government the situation isn't very similar.
Also the SPD were polling in the teens at the equivalent point in the last German parliament.
Union+Greens is a bit more likely than Union+SPD, although it's possible neither would actually get a majority on current polling.
The only combination which would have a majority on current polling is Union + AfD but even Merz, despite being right of Merkel, has ruled that out at Federal level
Maybe you are forgetting that parties that don't get 5% don't get into the Bundestag? In some of the latest polls that would mean only Union, AfD, Greens and SPD getting MPs.
Union + Greens or Union + SPD would be majorities in those polls.
Even where FDP just scrapes in Union + Greens or Union + SPD usually just gets a majority (or of course Union + any other 2 would be viable).
Far from certain that Merz will be the Union chancellor candidate, he's failed to impress, and the CDU polls better without him. He's even behind Scholz in the best Chancellor polling.
German CDU members selected Merz and wanted a shift to the right after Merkel, about 30-32% now back the CDU on the latest polls which is a significant increase from the 24% the Union got in 2021 and puts the Union clearly ahead. Merz would be chancellor whatever the coalition arithmetic on current polls
I'm not sure you understand how the German system works. The party leader of the leading coalition partner does not necessarily become Chancellor. For example: the current Chancellor. Neither was Merkel CDU party leader in her last years as Chancellor. I think it's quite likely that Merz won't be the Union Chancellor-candidate at the next election, even if he remains CDU leader, though of course it's possible he will be.
As for the polling, like I said the CDU polls better with alternatives named as potential chancellors, and worse when Merz is named as potential Chancellor. I don't know if you were trying to imply that the improvement in the CDU's polling is because of Merz. It's more that the CDU is the main opposition with an unpopular government.
The SPD have most seats in the German Parliament and Scholz is Chancellor. Merkel was also party leader of the CDU when she became Chancellor.
The CDU members elect their leader now and their membership voted for and back Merz, the CSU is the other Union partner who will select the Union chancellor candidate and even more rightwing than the CDU so the Union chancellor candidate certainly ain't going to be any more moderate than Merz is.
Who cares whether some alternative centrist might poll better than Merz when the CDU is going to win anyway on current polls. Most UK polls pre 1979 had Heath polling better than Thatcher but they were irrelevant as Thatcher won anyway
Yes Scholz is Chancellor. Scholz and Klara Geywitz were defeated by Norbert Walter-Borjans and Saskia Esken in the 2019 SPD leadership election. Despite not being party leader Scholz then became SPD Chancellor candidate.
Sure, the CDU might not care about opinion polling showing having Merz as Chancellor candidate would lose them votes. On the other hand last time they ignored the polling suggesting choosing Laschet as Chancellor candidate would lose them votes, so there will be plenty thinking they shouldn't do the same thing next time.
Yes, Thatcher is irrelevant in this case.
Only by an SPD leadership desperate for power after 16 years out of the Chancellry and only with both Borjans and Esken agreeing to nominate Scholz. There is zero chance of Merz backing any alternative Chancellor candidate.
Laschet was on the centrist Merkel wing of the CDU, Merz is on the rightwing of it and that wing wants its chance now.
No Thatcher most certainly is relevant, she won even if alternative leaders like Heath and Whitelaw may have polled better
Incidentally, who was the last US President to be actually defeated - as opposed to, not running - to seek and win renomination?
I keep coming up with Grover Cleveland in 1892 - is there anyone more recent than that? I know Hoover made two attempts but was unsuccessful.
Bush v Clinton in 1992?
I think you've misunderstood the question, which was about a President failing to get re-nomination rather than re-election. Clearly, several (including Bush) have failed to be re-elected, but were re-nominated by their party.
Although I'd note Johnson briefly ran for re-nomination in 1968 - it's just that he pulled out after a disappointing result in New Hampshire, which he only narrowly won. He said it was on the basis of ill-health (and his health was a factor although not the only factor) but arguably he did seek re-nomination.
He hadn't been defeated in an election!
But I don't really know how you define "defeat" in a primary process where candidates many withdrew. I mean, Mike Pence sought the Republican nomination in 2024, and Kamala Harris sought the Democratic one in 2020. They weren't "defeated" in the sense that they withdrew before the first primary. But they were certainly "defeated" in that they sought the nomination and didn't get it.
Johnson is an interesting one as he actually won the New Hampshire vote. But it was such a narrow win, then RFK entered the race. So he saw no successful way forward for his campaign and he withdrew (albeit ill-health made that decision clearer). I think that is, in a meaningful sense, defeat.
Aaargh! That's not what I said!
I said when has an incumbent president defeated in a PRESIDENTIAL election been renominated by their party for a later presidential election!
And the last example was Cleveland in 1892. Who won, ominously.
(I suppose Nixon as the incumbent VP might be considered close.)
You may have meant that, but you didn't say it. You said, "Incidentally, who was the last US President to be actually defeated - as opposed to, not running - to seek and win renomination?"
Incidentally, who was the last US President to be actually defeated - as opposed to, not running - to seek and win renomination?
I keep coming up with Grover Cleveland in 1892 - is there anyone more recent than that? I know Hoover made two attempts but was unsuccessful.
Bush v Clinton in 1992?
I think you've misunderstood the question, which was about a President failing to get re-nomination rather than re-election. Clearly, several (including Bush) have failed to be re-elected, but were re-nominated by their party.
Although I'd note Johnson briefly ran for re-nomination in 1968 - it's just that he pulled out after a disappointing result in New Hampshire, which he only narrowly won. He said it was on the basis of ill-health (and his health was a factor although not the only factor) but arguably he did seek re-nomination.
He hadn't been defeated in an election!
But I don't really know how you define "defeat" in a primary process where candidates many withdrew. I mean, Mike Pence sought the Republican nomination in 2024, and Kamala Harris sought the Democratic one in 2020. They weren't "defeated" in the sense that they withdrew before the first primary. But they were certainly "defeated" in that they sought the nomination and didn't get it.
Johnson is an interesting one as he actually won the New Hampshire vote. But it was such a narrow win, then RFK entered the race. So he saw no successful way forward for his campaign and he withdrew (albeit ill-health made that decision clearer). I think that is, in a meaningful sense, defeat.
> Robert F. Kennedy (Senior) did NOT declare his candidacy until AFTER the 1968 NH Primary; which was one of the reason why Eugene McCarthy and his supporters were so bitter about RFK's entry into the race . . . and (in their view) stealing McCarthy's electoral laundry off the clothes line.
That is actually what my post said - that Johnson won the New Hampshire primary only narrowly, then RFK entered the rase.
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
The MoD has 35 brass bands, 17 golf courses, 500 horses, 10 flying WW2 aircraft and a school of bagpiping.
They've got plenty of money; they just don't spend it wisely.
It's the hope that kills you. And it probably will be Hope that extinguishes it.
England have no Hope at present.
The sooner ODIs are abandoned the sooner our humiliations will end.
I just don't understand what has happened to Buttler. From one of the best batsmen in the world to an embarrassment in just months. Really sad. He will have to drop himself if it goes on like this.
I think in part it's past brilliance doing for him. Buttler is still trying to bat like the Buttler of a year ago whose footwork and timing were instinctive and brilliant, whereas he's that little bit off. Unlike most players, he's not reining it in a bit, batting for himself, and trying to properly bat himself back into form - which makes him look worse. Possibly because he's captain and England make such a thing of being positive, he feels he can't. But Stokes has done that when he's been searching for touch - admittedly you can much more in tests. But his opposite number shows how you can tick over then explode when the time feels right.
Looking backward to the wacky world of politics American-style in 1968, note that the last time a sitting POTUS had been seriously challenged for renomination by his own party for another term, was in 1912 when former POTUS Theodore Roosevelt ran against his former protege William Howard Taft for the Republican nomination; WHT won that round but was driven into 3rd place in November by TR.
So the fact that an upstart insurgent like Senator McCarthy could even come close to LBJ in the snows of New Hampshire, was a BIG shock.
Fact that ALL of the votes LBJ got in NH were WRITE-INS might have tempered the assessment that the primary was moral-political defeat for him. Seeing as how winning write-in support is functionally tougher than garnering votes when your name is printed on the ballot.
However, this did NOT soften the blow or the shock. Perhaps because 1968 New Hampshire Primary took place right after the Tet Offensive - and even bigger shock that definitely cut into support for LBJ and boosted McCarthy, including by some NH Dems who were not (yet) anti-war BUT who wanted to register a protest vote.
Yours truly actually remember seeing reports on TV evening news (ABC, CBS or NBC) about 1968 New Hampshire primary. Specifically, about college students who were coming to the state "neat and clean for Gene" campaigning for McCarthy.
And saw President Johnson on TV when he announced he was NOT a candidate for re-election. Which was yet another shock . . . in a year with even more shocking shocks to come . . .
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
Every NATO state needs defence spending of 5% to fully contain Putin, the UK alone wouldn't be enough
Arming Ukraine to defeat the invasion would significantly cut the likelihood of future wars.
Abandon them, as the US seems to be flirting with, and what you say is fairly inevitable.
Even without the US the remaining NATO economies combined are comfortably more than the Russian economy, they just need to spend as much on defence as Putin does and send much of that to Ukraine
While that's true, Europe does not have the capacity to sufficiently supply Ukraine in the next six months to a year. And a Ukrainian defeat would likely divide Europe between those who would stand up to Putin and those who would seek (an illusory) compromise with him.
The fate of Putin's invasion depends largely on the Republicans in Congress.
Look, Putin is not going to capture Kyiv even if the US didn't send Ukraine another cent.
Putin might hold what he has got and yes it would be preferable to drive him out of the country completely but it would just end up in deadlock not a Putin complete victory.
However the message remains Europe needs to fund more of its own defence and defend the borders of its own continent, not rely on whoever controls the US White House and Congress all the time
I'm afraid that's simply unrealistic. There's no political will, no spare money, especially not in Germany which is the country that would count, many European countries (Hungary? Slovakia? France under Le Pen?) are in any case unreliable, the attachment to national armies means you would never get the economics of scale and in any case there's no consensus as to where the borders of the continent are (the current EU border? including Ukraine or not? the Urals? what about the Med?).
Well if Putin captures Kyiv, then marches his troops on through Poland and onto Berlin they can have no complaints then if European nations do not co ordinate their forces in NATO to control him
None at all, but I'm afraid it will have to be the Anglo-Saxon world that rides to their rescue. Yet again.
As Mrs Thatcher noted:
All our problems have come from mainland Europe and all the solutions have come from the English-speaking nations across the world.
And then they will spend the next half-century blaming us for rescuing them from their own incompetence and decadence.
Incidentally, who was the last US President to be actually defeated - as opposed to, not running - to seek and win renomination?
I keep coming up with Grover Cleveland in 1892 - is there anyone more recent than that? I know Hoover made two attempts but was unsuccessful.
Bush v Clinton in 1992?
I think you've misunderstood the question, which was about a President failing to get re-nomination rather than re-election. Clearly, several (including Bush) have failed to be re-elected, but were re-nominated by their party.
Although I'd note Johnson briefly ran for re-nomination in 1968 - it's just that he pulled out after a disappointing result in New Hampshire, which he only narrowly won. He said it was on the basis of ill-health (and his health was a factor although not the only factor) but arguably he did seek re-nomination.
He hadn't been defeated in an election!
But I don't really know how you define "defeat" in a primary process where candidates many withdrew. I mean, Mike Pence sought the Republican nomination in 2024, and Kamala Harris sought the Democratic one in 2020. They weren't "defeated" in the sense that they withdrew before the first primary. But they were certainly "defeated" in that they sought the nomination and didn't get it.
Johnson is an interesting one as he actually won the New Hampshire vote. But it was such a narrow win, then RFK entered the race. So he saw no successful way forward for his campaign and he withdrew (albeit ill-health made that decision clearer). I think that is, in a meaningful sense, defeat.
> Robert F. Kennedy (Senior) did NOT declare his candidacy until AFTER the 1968 NH Primary; which was one of the reason why Eugene McCarthy and his supporters were so bitter about RFK's entry into the race . . . and (in their view) stealing McCarthy's electoral laundry off the clothes line.
That is actually what my post said - that Johnson won the New Hampshire primary only narrowly, then RFK entered the rase.
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
The MoD has 35 brass bands, 17 golf courses, 500 horses, 10 flying WW2 aircraft and a school of bagpiping.
They've got plenty of money; they just don't spend it wisely.
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
The MoD has 35 brass bands, 17 golf courses, 500 horses, 10 flying WW2 aircraft and a school of bagpiping.
They've got plenty of money; they just don't spend it wisely.
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
Every NATO state needs defence spending of 5% to fully contain Putin, the UK alone wouldn't be enough
Arming Ukraine to defeat the invasion would significantly cut the likelihood of future wars.
Abandon them, as the US seems to be flirting with, and what you say is fairly inevitable.
Even without the US the remaining NATO economies combined are comfortably more than the Russian economy, they just need to spend as much on defence as Putin does and send much of that to Ukraine
While that's true, Europe does not have the capacity to sufficiently supply Ukraine in the next six months to a year. And a Ukrainian defeat would likely divide Europe between those who would stand up to Putin and those who would seek (an illusory) compromise with him.
The fate of Putin's invasion depends largely on the Republicans in Congress.
Look, Putin is not going to capture Kyiv even if the US didn't send Ukraine another cent.
Putin might hold what he has got and yes it would be preferable to drive him out of the country completely but it would just end up in deadlock not a Putin complete victory.
However the message remains Europe needs to fund more of its own defence and defend the borders of its own continent, not rely on whoever controls the US White House and Congress all the time
I'm afraid that's simply unrealistic. There's no political will, no spare money, especially not in Germany which is the country that would count, many European countries (Hungary? Slovakia? France under Le Pen?) are in any case unreliable, the attachment to national armies means you would never get the economics of scale and in any case there's no consensus as to where the borders of the continent are (the current EU border? including Ukraine or not? the Urals? what about the Med?).
Well if Putin captures Kyiv, then marches his troops on through Poland and onto Berlin they can have no complaints then if European nations do not co ordinate their forces in NATO to control him
None at all, but I'm afraid it will have to be the Anglo-Saxon world that rides to their rescue. Yet again.
As Mrs Thatcher noted:
All our problems have come from mainland Europe and all the solutions have come from the English-speaking nations across the world.
And then they will spend the next half-century blaming us for rescuing them from their own incompetence and decadence.
Well to be fair Trump is from the English speaking world and would be a great help to Putin if he returned to power
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
The MoD has 35 brass bands, 17 golf courses, 500 horses, 10 flying WW2 aircraft and a school of bagpiping.
They've got plenty of money; they just don't spend it wisely.
How much do all these cost vs 1 nuke?
Well Putin has nukes and so must we
True, but the UK's nuclear deterrent is about 41bn, and we have 260 nuclear warheads, which is £150mish per warhead.
One assumes the cost of 35 brass bands (effectively an after school club for enlisted members), 17 golf courses (leisure facilities on classified areas where the public isn't allowed near), 500 horses + 10 propaganda weapons (how many turn out for the RAF displays?) is under £150m.
I don't think any of Dura Ace's examples are egregious spending, when you can put the cost of the whole lot under the cost of one nuke.
And those 500 horses might even come in handy if there's a solar flare that renders cars useless.
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
On (off) topic of failed POTUS renominations, Harry Truman is interesting case.
as per his wiki entry
1952 election - In 1951, the United States ratified the 22nd Amendment, making a president ineligible for election to a third term or for election to a second full term after serving more than two remaining years of a term of a previously elected president. The latter clause did not apply to Truman's situation in 1952 because of a grandfather clause exempting the incumbent president.
Therefore, he seriously considered running for another term in 1952 and left his name on the ballot in the New Hampshire primary. However, all his close advisors, pointing to his age, his failing abilities, and his poor showing in the polls, talked him out of it.
At the time of the 1952 New Hampshire primary, no candidate had won Truman's backing. His first choice, Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, had declined to run; Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson had also turned Truman down . . . Truman distrusted and disliked Senator [Estes] Kefauver, who had made a name for himself by his investigations of the Truman administration scandals.
Truman let his name be entered in the New Hampshire primary by supporters. The highly unpopular Truman was handily defeated by Kefauver; 18 days later the president formally announced he would not seek a second full term. Truman was eventually able to persuade Stevenson to run, and the governor gained the nomination at the 1952 Democratic National Convention. . . .
1948 New Hampshire Presidential Primary (March 11)
SSI - Among Democrats, Kefauver won 55% versus 45% for Truman; on Republican side, Eisenhower 50%, Robert Taft 39%, Harold Stassen 7%, Douglas MacArthur 3.5% (write-ins)
ADDENDUM - It was THIS New Hampshire Primary, that first made the "First in the Nation" New Hampshire Primary a REALLY big deal.
Looking backward to the wacky world of politics American-style in 1968, note that the last time a sitting POTUS had been seriously challenged for renomination by his own party for another term, was in 1912 when former POTUS Theodore Roosevelt ran against his former protege William Howard Taft for the Republican nomination; WHT won that round but was driven into 3rd place in November by TR.
So the fact that an upstart insurgent like Senator McCarthy could even come close to LBJ in the snows of New Hampshire, was a BIG shock.
Fact that ALL of the votes LBJ got in NH were WRITE-INS might have tempered the assessment that the primary was moral-political defeat for him. Seeing as how winning write-in support is functionally tougher than garnering votes when your name is printed on the ballot.
However, this did NOT soften the blow or the shock. Perhaps because 1968 New Hampshire Primary took place right after the Tet Offensive - and even bigger shock that definitely cut into support for LBJ and boosted McCarthy, including by some NH Dems who were not (yet) anti-war BUT who wanted to register a protest vote.
Yours truly actually remember seeing reports on TV evening news (ABC, CBS or NBC) about 1968 New Hampshire primary. Specifically, about college students who were coming to the state "neat and clean for Gene" campaigning for McCarthy.
And saw President Johnson on TV when he announced he was NOT a candidate for re-election. Which was yet another shock . . . in a year with even more shocking shocks to come . . .
"nor accept the nomination of the Democratic party".
I read something the other day about how conventions had more power on those days to make someone the candidate.
It's the hope that kills you. And it probably will be Hope that extinguishes it.
England have no Hope at present.
The sooner ODIs are abandoned the sooner our humiliations will end.
I just don't understand what has happened to Buttler. From one of the best batsmen in the world to an embarrassment in just months. Really sad. He will have to drop himself if it goes on like this.
I think in part it's past brilliance doing for him. Buttler is still trying to bat like the Buttler of a year ago whose footwork and timing were instinctive and brilliant, whereas he's that little bit off. Unlike most players, he's not reining it in a bit, batting for himself, and trying to properly bat himself back into form - which makes him look worse. Possibly because he's captain and England make such a thing of being positive, he feels he can't. But Stokes has done that when he's been searching for touch - admittedly you can much more in tests. But his opposite number shows how you can tick over then explode when the time feels right.
I think that there is a lot of truth in that but when he was playing well, even in T20, he tended to start slow, get himself in and then speed up and up. Now he seems to think he needs a boundary off the first ball.
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
Yes but they need a majority of Tory MPs for that, which they don't have
Looking backward to the wacky world of politics American-style in 1968, note that the last time a sitting POTUS had been seriously challenged for renomination by his own party for another term, was in 1912 when former POTUS Theodore Roosevelt ran against his former protege William Howard Taft for the Republican nomination; WHT won that round but was driven into 3rd place in November by TR.
So the fact that an upstart insurgent like Senator McCarthy could even come close to LBJ in the snows of New Hampshire, was a BIG shock.
Fact that ALL of the votes LBJ got in NH were WRITE-INS might have tempered the assessment that the primary was moral-political defeat for him. Seeing as how winning write-in support is functionally tougher than garnering votes when your name is printed on the ballot.
However, this did NOT soften the blow or the shock. Perhaps because 1968 New Hampshire Primary took place right after the Tet Offensive - and even bigger shock that definitely cut into support for LBJ and boosted McCarthy, including by some NH Dems who were not (yet) anti-war BUT who wanted to register a protest vote.
Yours truly actually remember seeing reports on TV evening news (ABC, CBS or NBC) about 1968 New Hampshire primary. Specifically, about college students who were coming to the state "neat and clean for Gene" campaigning for McCarthy.
And saw President Johnson on TV when he announced he was NOT a candidate for re-election. Which was yet another shock . . . in a year with even more shocking shocks to come . . .
"nor accept the nomination of the Democratic party".
I read something the other day about how conventions had more power on those days to make someone the candidate.
US major-party national conventions STILL have that power, or rather the delegates elected to DNC and RNC have that power under party rule.
Which can, according to rules, be delegated to respective national committees in certain circumstances.
ADDENDUM - The "Sherman statement" as first invoked and specified by William T Sherman in declining efforts to get him to run for President:
1884 - "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected."
Note that in 1871, Sherman said "I hereby state, and mean all that I say, that I never have been and never will be a candidate for President; that if nominated by either party, I should peremptorily decline; and even if unanimously elected I should decline to serve."
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
Yes but they need a majority of Tory MPs for that, which they don't have
If Rishi doesn't get his Rwanda bill through next week then he needs to call a General Election simple as that. First Thursday in February I think that is 1 February. Let's bring this to a close.
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
This seems a bit like the January 2010 plot to oust El Gord that eventually ended up in failure...
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
This seems a bit like the January 2010 plot to oust El Gord that eventually ended up in failure...
Where are they now?
None are MPs me thinks? I am mis-remembering the people?
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
This seems a bit like the January 2010 plot to oust El Gord that eventually ended up in failure...
Where are they now?
None are MPs me thinks? I am mis-remembering the people?
Well no, most on them were Blairites, so if they survived 2010 and 2015, Jezza would've got rid of them subsequently...
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
Yes but they need a majority of Tory MPs for that, which they don't have
If Rishi doesn't get his Rwanda bill through next week then he needs to call a General Election simple as that. First Thursday in February I think that is 1 February. Let's bring this to a close.
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
The MoD has 35 brass bands, 17 golf courses, 500 horses, 10 flying WW2 aircraft and a school of bagpiping.
They've got plenty of money; they just don't spend it wisely.
How much do all these cost vs 1 nuke?
Well Putin has nukes and so must we
True, but the UK's nuclear deterrent is about 41bn, and we have 260 nuclear warheads, which is £150mish per warhead.
One assumes the cost of 35 brass bands (effectively an after school club for enlisted members), 17 golf courses (leisure facilities on classified areas where the public isn't allowed near), 500 horses + 10 propaganda weapons (how many turn out for the RAF displays?) is under £150m.
I don't think any of Dura Ace's examples are egregious spending, when you can put the cost of the whole lot under the cost of one nuke.
And those 500 horses might even come in handy if there's a solar flare that renders cars useless.
Hmm, you're forgetting maintenance costs. And the lack of training on warfare more modern than 1916 that looking after the ponies means. Ditto the very limited number of fast jet pilots which is leeched away by the Red Arrows, as IIRC DA has observed in the past.
Also - the cost of one nuke weapon would be more like 20-30 bn and the incremental cost of each nuke much less. You can't say that of the horses (primitive tech), or the Red Arrows (use standard trainer jet, at least at the moment, for which the maintenance etc would be needed anyway).
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
Yes but they need a majority of Tory MPs for that, which they don't have
If Rishi doesn't get his Rwanda bill through next week then he needs to call a General Election simple as that. First Thursday in February I think that is 1 February. Let's bring this to a close.
I think I’m delirious with flu but here is my plan to save US democracy. The Democrats should nominate Trump at the convention. He’s a Democrat by persuasion anyway and he’s so vain he would find it hard not to accept. He would almost certainly lose the election as his followers would abandon him and the Republicans can reorganise themselves with a semi sane candidate. After four years both parties can go back to normal.
Re Iowa. Haley will take a good second place, win South Carolina and then first again in New Hampshire. From then it will be a shoe in. When she is President will she pardon Trump???
I wonder how Trump would do as an independent against Biden and Haley.
One up on Perot and actually win a few states? Surely beat Haley in some.
Firstly, it won't and can't happen unless Trump goes independent before the vast majority of primaries. Filing deadlines and sore-loser candidacies etc.
And secondly, why would Trump carry any state in the general election if he lost the primaries and nomination?
The only way he loses the nomination - for which he's currently polling 60%+, by the way, against peanuts for the rest - is if his campaign completely implodes. And if that happens, where then is his support in November?
It is perfectly possible Trump gets 40% of delegates or so after a criminal conviction but is denied the nomination as other delegates combine to pick an alternative.
That would still give him about 20% of the US vote and in states without sore loser rules where he got on the ballot and won by large margins even in 2020 eg West Virginia, he certainly might win those states as a 3rd party candidate
If it were possible then I'd be confident he could get at least half the current GOP vote in one of the deep deep Red states given the level of support and devotion he has, and so push the official GOP nominee hard.
Bill Cash, dribble running down his chin, Mark Francois, God knows what flowing down his tiny inside leg, breathlessly passing judgement on the Rwanda Bill following close consultation with conveyancing solicitors and junior tax barristers. The UK government in thrall to these utter frauds. It’s so totally pathetic.
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
If they haven't already beaten the record for most PMs in one period in office they must be getting close.
Whilst they ousted him because he kept putting them in the shit for no reason other than his own failings, it probably is true ousting Boris, followed by the even faster ousting of Truss, has given the party a taste for oustings. On top of shattering any sense of comradeship they might have had.
Perhaps we'll be going the Australia route of the last 15 years and swap PMs every 2-3 years.
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
Whatever else it is, 'inexplicable' it certainly ain't.
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
The MoD has 35 brass bands, 17 golf courses, 500 horses, 10 flying WW2 aircraft and a school of bagpiping.
They've got plenty of money; they just don't spend it wisely.
How much do all these cost vs 1 nuke?
Well Putin has nukes and so must we
True, but the UK's nuclear deterrent is about 41bn, and we have 260 nuclear warheads, which is £150mish per warhead.
One assumes the cost of 35 brass bands (effectively an after school club for enlisted members), 17 golf courses (leisure facilities on classified areas where the public isn't allowed near), 500 horses + 10 propaganda weapons (how many turn out for the RAF displays?) is under £150m.
I don't think any of Dura Ace's examples are egregious spending, when you can put the cost of the whole lot under the cost of one nuke.
And those 500 horses might even come in handy if there's a solar flare that renders cars useless.
Hmm, you're forgetting maintenance costs. And the lack of training on warfare more modern than 1916 that looking after the ponies means. Ditto the very limited number of fast jet pilots which is leeched away by the Red Arrows, as IIRC DA has observed in the past.
Also - the cost of one nuke weapon would be more like 20-30 bn and the incremental cost of each nuke much less. You can't say that of the horses (primitive tech), or the Red Arrows (use standard trainer jet, at least at the moment, for which the maintenance etc would be needed anyway).
I assume we can use the horses (crowd control, use in circumstances where EMP renders vehicles useless, e.g after a nuclear strike) plus the ceremonial use (tourism dollars), the red arrows are peacetime training + propaganda purposes, really none of DH's examples strike me as egregious, heck we shouldn't be spending money on that sort of thing expenditure.
Compared to the cost of keeping a nuclear deterrent and staffing all those nuclear subs, does it really matter that we are paying to hire some guy to teach soldiers the bagpipes, so they can play them at ceremonial occasions?
Assuming the 35 brass bands can pick up a gun as quickly as they can pick up a trumpet, how much do they really cost?
The worry for me on defence costs that are wasted are guns that don't work when jammed up by sand (early SA80s) or civil servants buying cheap bullets that don't work. Keeping 500 horses for ceremonial purposes, and just in case, seems less than egregious.
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
This seems a bit like the January 2010 plot to oust El Gord that eventually ended up in failure...
However, having said that, you never know with the Tories... Unlike Labour who stick with their losers the Tories are very good at dispatching leaders who aren't performing so I don't think you can rule out one desperate last throw of the dice... 🤷♂️
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
The MoD has 35 brass bands, 17 golf courses, 500 horses, 10 flying WW2 aircraft and a school of bagpiping.
They've got plenty of money; they just don't spend it wisely.
I can kind of understand the WW2 aircraft as that's essentially part of the PR budget and stirs up warm feelings among bloviating gammons or whatever, so may well be worth the stupid maintenance costs for sake of the positive image. If I was doing their comms I'd probably say some number of horses for ceremonial purposes was useful, and that brass instruments for even 35 bands doesn't cost that much (so long as you don't go heavy on the Tubas).
But why on earth do they need their own golf courses? There's tons of the buggers all over the place.
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
Yes but they need a majority of Tory MPs for that, which they don't have
If Rishi doesn't get his Rwanda bill through next week then he needs to call a General Election simple as that. First Thursday in February I think that is 1 February. Let's bring this to a close.
May proved you can stay in office without the ability to actually do anything for a surprisingly long time, if no one can agree on who to replace you with or wants to have an election.
Of course, she still had leads in the polls at that time, inexplicably.
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
Yes but they need a majority of Tory MPs for that, which they don't have
Which is the next step only. Sections of the Tory right may be stirring the pot here, but we get to a VONC primarily by an outbreak of panic.
Sunak wins the VONC and goes into his 12 months protected window, but with enough votes against to weaken him. And we all know coitus interruptus provides massively more effective protection than the 1922 rules do.
Waiting after May for the election will.look even more like a risk for ignominious deposal if the locals are allowed to stand alone.
Basically, VONC means May GE to my way of thinking.
One small snag seems to be neither are currently MP's, but why let a small matter like that get in the way of a good plot? 😂
He could have stuck around in Parliament if he had any interest in a return this side of a General Election. Quitting before there was even a recall petition was to me a clear sign he was calling quits on the next election, and he was either bowing out or waiting until the aftermath to return properly.
I think I’m delirious with flu but here is my plan to save US democracy. The Democrats should nominate Trump at the convention. He’s a Democrat by persuasion anyway and he’s so vain he would find it hard not to accept. He would almost certainly lose the election as his followers would abandon him and the Republicans can reorganise themselves with a semi sane candidate. After four years both parties can go back to normal.
Wouldn't that end up with both parties nominating Trump?
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
To be fair the stat on number of Tory vs Labour PMs since 1945 is looking pretty good now…
One small snag seems to be neither are currently MP's, but why let a small matter like that get in the way of a good plot? 😂
He could have stuck around in Parliament if he had any interest in a return this side of a General Election. Quitting before there was even a recall petition was to me a clear sign he was calling quits on the next election, and he was either bowing out or waiting until the aftermath to return properly.
Indeed. And Garage has already said multiple times the Tories need to get a pasting at Election 24 before he'd even consider joining them
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
The MoD has 35 brass bands, 17 golf courses, 500 horses, 10 flying WW2 aircraft and a school of bagpiping.
They've got plenty of money; they just don't spend it wisely.
I can kind of understand the WW2 aircraft as that's essentially part of the PR budget and stirs up warm feelings among bloviating gammons or whatever, so may well be worth the stupid maintenance costs for sake of the positive image. If I was doing their comms I'd probably say some number of horses for ceremonial purposes was useful, and that brass instruments for even 35 bands doesn't cost that much (so long as you don't go heavy on the Tubas).
But why on earth do they need their own golf courses? There's tons of the buggers all over the place.
I assume the MOD owns a ton of land that you're not allowed to enter for the same reason we have exclusion zones around airports, nuclear facilities etc.
Don't have a huge problem with people who are security cleared using those spaces as recreational facilities, if it's land that can't otherwise be used.
I'm still waiting for a political commentator to run with my suggestion of Sunak quitting as Tory leader and then calling a General Election, so the Tories can run a leadership conest at the same time and hopefully draw support for each strand of Toryism the various candidates advance, since people won't know for sure which will be the party leader.
One small snag seems to be neither are currently MP's, but why let a small matter like that get in the way of a good plot? 😂
He could have stuck around in Parliament if he had any interest in a return this side of a General Election. Quitting before there was even a recall petition was to me a clear sign he was calling quits on the next election, and he was either bowing out or waiting until the aftermath to return properly.
I could see a Kemi / Farage ticket doing quite well though. Which makes me a little depressed now that I've thought of it.
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
Yes but they need a majority of Tory MPs for that, which they don't have
Which is the next step only. Sections of the Tory right may be stirring the pot here, but we get to a VONC primarily by an outbreak of panic.
Sunak wins the VONC and goes into his 12 months protected window, but with enough votes against to weaken him. And we all know coitus interruptus provides massively more effective protection than the 1922 rules do.
Waiting after May for the election will.look even more like a risk for ignominious deposal if the locals are allowed to stand alone.
Basically, VONC means May GE to my way of thinking.
I don't think so, he would then have another 12 months and by the autumn would have got immigration down and allowed scope for some economic improvement. If the rebels lose a VONC and fail to topple Sunak that is them cooked until the general election
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
This seems a bit like the January 2010 plot to oust El Gord that eventually ended up in failure...
However, having said that, you never know with the Tories... Unlike Labour who stick with their losers the Tories are very good at dispatching leaders who aren't performing so I don't think you can rule out one desperate last throw of the dice... 🤷♂️
They removed Boris and replaced him with 2 leaders who have polled even worse
The Watership Down gag earlier had me nostalgically do some googling, and turns out there is a wiki (of course). Now, I've never watched the TV series, but awesome a leader as I remember Hazel being in the book I don't remember him literally being Churchill!
"Then we make our stand here. We fight for every patch of ground, every burrow, until Woundwort's army lies in ruins! We shall never surrender!"
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
If they haven't already beaten the record for most PMs in one period in office they must be getting close.
Whilst they ousted him because he kept putting them in the shit for no reason other than his own failings, it probably is true ousting Boris, followed by the even faster ousting of Truss, has given the party a taste for oustings. On top of shattering any sense of comradeship they might have had.
Perhaps we'll be going the Australia route of the last 15 years and swap PMs every 2-3 years.
Maybe getting on the Wikipedia page for 'Backbenchers who voted for the most changes of PM within X years' page is as good as it gets for them.
'Backbenchers who voted for [[dismal thing, time after dull time]]' is maybe less noteworthy?
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
If they haven't already beaten the record for most PMs in one period in office they must be getting close.
Whilst they ousted him because he kept putting them in the shit for no reason other than his own failings, it probably is true ousting Boris, followed by the even faster ousting of Truss, has given the party a taste for oustings. On top of shattering any sense of comradeship they might have had.
Perhaps we'll be going the Australia route of the last 15 years and swap PMs every 2-3 years.
You can probably date it earlier - to May. That's when the ERG set the fashion that a well-organised grouping - especially one on the right given the backing from the Tory press - could hold a leader over a barrel and dispose of them when their popularity was shot. And when the Tory right decided the public wanted and must have what they were selling, no matter what the cost to party or country.
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
This seems a bit like the January 2010 plot to oust El Gord that eventually ended up in failure...
However, having said that, you never know with the Tories... Unlike Labour who stick with their losers the Tories are very good at dispatching leaders who aren't performing so I don't think you can rule out one desperate last throw of the dice... 🤷♂️
They removed Boris and replaced him with 2 leaders who have polled even worse
These things are kind of self perpetuating. The sheer chaos and incompetence of replacing twice in quick succession (and if it had gone to a members vote bringing Boris back weeks after ousting him) was equivalent to ripping out someone's skeleton and expecting them to still be standing up because they still have most of their mass remaining.
Since Sunak has neither succeeded on his own terms or set a new direction (and thus seems to have pleased neither the right nor the centre), they probably should have held firm and not ousted Truss at least, and seen what happened.
I certainly understand the choice they made, given the polling, I didn't think they'd do it but thought it made sense at the time, but the damage of repeated changes has been pretty fatal, even if Sunak had done a better job.
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
This seems a bit like the January 2010 plot to oust El Gord that eventually ended up in failure...
However, having said that, you never know with the Tories... Unlike Labour who stick with their losers the Tories are very good at dispatching leaders who aren't performing so I don't think you can rule out one desperate last throw of the dice... 🤷♂️
They removed Boris and replaced him with 2 leaders who have polled even worse
Have you forgotten? Boris was very, very naughty and had to go.
> Robert F. Kennedy (Senior) did NOT declare his candidacy until AFTER the 1968 NH Primary; which was one of the reason why Eugene McCarthy and his supporters were so bitter about RFK's entry into the race . . . and (in their view) stealing McCarthy's electoral laundry off the clothes line.
Can personally testify to the depth of that bitterness, which affected relations between former McCarthy and Kennedy supporters for decades after 1968.
I was fond of Gene McCarthy and was actually offered the unpaid job as European organiser for his failing 3rd party bid 4 years later.
One small snag seems to be neither are currently MP's, but why let a small matter like that get in the way of a good plot? 😂
He could have stuck around in Parliament if he had any interest in a return this side of a General Election. Quitting before there was even a recall petition was to me a clear sign he was calling quits on the next election, and he was either bowing out or waiting until the aftermath to return properly.
I could see a Kemi / Farage ticket doing quite well though. Which makes me a little depressed now that I've thought of it.
LOTO Kemi / D.LOTO Nigel Vs SKS looking for a second term would make for an interesting Election 2029,
Will Nige still be well enough though? He'll be 65/66 by then... Around the age that those booze and cigs could start catching up with him...
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
If they haven't already beaten the record for most PMs in one period in office they must be getting close.
Whilst they ousted him because he kept putting them in the shit for no reason other than his own failings, it probably is true ousting Boris, followed by the even faster ousting of Truss, has given the party a taste for oustings. On top of shattering any sense of comradeship they might have had.
Perhaps we'll be going the Australia route of the last 15 years and swap PMs every 2-3 years.
You can probably date it earlier - to May. That's when the ERG set the fashion that a well-organised grouping - especially one on the right given the backing from the Tory press - could hold a leader over a barrel and dispose of them when their popularity was shot. And when the Tory right decided the public wanted and must have what they were selling, no matter what the cost to party or country.
Yes, parties will have factions of course, but the organised nature of it, almost treating it like a party within a party, with its officers and media outriders, well, it smacked a lot of Momentum. The party machinery do have too much control in our system, but I'm not sure that is the answer, especially as they don't want any less central control, these factions are just means of challenging for that control.
Has any UK Leader truly survived a leadership contest? In a way which then actually helped them succeed electorally I mean.
Obviously people have had challenges and won them, and some have later been ousted anyway or they have gone on to lead their party at the next GE like Major, but have many faced down a leadership challenge, won, and then gone on to more actual success? Or is it an inevitable sign of defeat one way or another, even if you survive?
I guess Corbyn technically counts since after his contest in 2016 his position was strengthened in the 2017 GE, but it never actually led to electoral success.
I have jokingly suggested Sunak wouldn't want a GE any sooner than October 2024 so that he can officially make it to 2 years as PM, but on the same basis he's already guaranteed to have 'PM from 2022-2024' on his wikipedia page, so really no reason not to go for it now.
One small snag seems to be neither are currently MP's, but why let a small matter like that get in the way of a good plot? 😂
Not being an MP doesn't seem to have got in the way of Cameron becoming foreign secretary.
You think people would respond positively to a PM in the Lords? I'd think even some people who really want Boris back would hesitate at him doing so without being an MP. And in the current climate even someone in the safest seat resigning so he could stand in an emergency by-election would be a gamble.
The Watership Down gag earlier had me nostalgically do some googling, and turns out there is a wiki (of course). Now, I've never watched the TV series, but awesome a leader as I remember Hazel being in the book I don't remember him literally being Churchill!
"Then we make our stand here. We fight for every patch of ground, every burrow, until Woundwort's army lies in ruins! We shall never surrender!"
> Robert F. Kennedy (Senior) did NOT declare his candidacy until AFTER the 1968 NH Primary; which was one of the reason why Eugene McCarthy and his supporters were so bitter about RFK's entry into the race . . . and (in their view) stealing McCarthy's electoral laundry off the clothes line.
Can personally testify to the depth of that bitterness, which affected relations between former McCarthy and Kennedy supporters for decades after 1968.
I was fond of Gene McCarthy and was actually offered the unpaid job as European organiser for his failing 3rd party bid 4 years later.
For all those of you getting whiplash about our former Eurocommunist and Labour MP's position in this, I need to point out that Senator Joseph McCarthy and Senator Eugene McCarthy were (very) different people.
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
Every NATO state needs defence spending of 5% to fully contain Putin, the UK alone wouldn't be enough
Arming Ukraine to defeat the invasion would significantly cut the likelihood of future wars.
Abandon them, as the US seems to be flirting with, and what you say is fairly inevitable.
Even without the US the remaining NATO economies combined are comfortably more than the Russian economy, they just need to spend as much on defence as Putin does and send much of that to Ukraine
While that's true, Europe does not have the capacity to sufficiently supply Ukraine in the next six months to a year. And a Ukrainian defeat would likely divide Europe between those who would stand up to Putin and those who would seek (an illusory) compromise with him.
The fate of Putin's invasion depends largely on the Republicans in Congress.
Look, Putin is not going to capture Kyiv even if the US didn't send Ukraine another cent.
Putin might hold what he has got and yes it would be preferable to drive him out of the country completely but it would just end up in deadlock not a Putin complete victory.
However the message remains Europe needs to fund more of its own defence and defend the borders of its own continent, not rely on whoever controls the US White House and Congress all the time
I'm afraid that's simply unrealistic. There's no political will, no spare money, especially not in Germany which is the country that would count, many European countries (Hungary? Slovakia? France under Le Pen?) are in any case unreliable, the attachment to national armies means you would never get the economics of scale and in any case there's no consensus as to where the borders of the continent are (the current EU border? including Ukraine or not? the Urals? what about the Med?).
Well if Putin captures Kyiv, then marches his troops on through Poland and onto Berlin they can have no complaints then if European nations do not co ordinate their forces in NATO to control him
None at all, but I'm afraid it will have to be the Anglo-Saxon world that rides to their rescue. Yet again.
As Mrs Thatcher noted:
All our problems have come from mainland Europe and all the solutions have come from the English-speaking nations across the world.
And then they will spend the next half-century blaming us for rescuing them from their own incompetence and decadence.
The IRA didn't come from "Mainland" Europe. China doesn't come from Europe. Al Qaeda and Islamic State don't come from Europe. Heroin and Cocaine don't come from "Mainland" Europe. The majority of Immigrants crossing the English Channel don't come from "Mainland" Europe.
Trump isn't a European. Galtieri didn't come from Europe. You'd think Thatcher would have remembered that.
One small snag seems to be neither are currently MP's, but why let a small matter like that get in the way of a good plot? 😂
Not being an MP doesn't seem to have got in the way of Cameron becoming foreign secretary.
You think people would respond positively to a PM in the Lords? I'd think even some people who really want Boris back would hesitate at him doing so without being an MP. And in the current climate even someone in the safest seat resigning so he could stand in an emergency by-election would be a gamble.
I think the King would scream in anger and plunge a serrated dagger into Boris's chest and pull his still-beating heart out so he could see it as he died. And that still wouldn't be the most improbable thing that day...
One small snag seems to be neither are currently MP's, but why let a small matter like that get in the way of a good plot? 😂
Not being an MP doesn't seem to have got in the way of Cameron becoming foreign secretary.
No but you need a majority of Tory MPs to vote for you to become Tory leader and CCHQ to agree to put you on the approved candidates' list. Not just 1 PM to give you a peerage and the FO
The Watership Down gag earlier had me nostalgically do some googling, and turns out there is a wiki (of course). Now, I've never watched the TV series, but awesome a leader as I remember Hazel being in the book I don't remember him literally being Churchill!
"Then we make our stand here. We fight for every patch of ground, every burrow, until Woundwort's army lies in ruins! We shall never surrender!"
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
This seems a bit like the January 2010 plot to oust El Gord that eventually ended up in failure...
However, having said that, you never know with the Tories... Unlike Labour who stick with their losers the Tories are very good at dispatching leaders who aren't performing so I don't think you can rule out one desperate last throw of the dice... 🤷♂️
They removed Boris and replaced him with 2 leaders who have polled even worse
Have you forgotten? Boris was very, very naughty and had to go.
Well Boris was hardly the Pope in 2019 either was he? Yet he still won the general election
One small snag seems to be neither are currently MP's, but why let a small matter like that get in the way of a good plot? 😂
He could have stuck around in Parliament if he had any interest in a return this side of a General Election. Quitting before there was even a recall petition was to me a clear sign he was calling quits on the next election, and he was either bowing out or waiting until the aftermath to return properly.
Indeed. And Garage has already said multiple times the Tories need to get a pasting at Election 24 before he'd even consider joining them
One small snag seems to be neither are currently MP's, but why let a small matter like that get in the way of a good plot? 😂
Not being an MP doesn't seem to have got in the way of Cameron becoming foreign secretary.
Becoming foreign secretarty from HoL is a bit different to being PM and DPM from HoL though, Andy J?
And anyway, who would ennoble Boris and Nige in the first place? It would have to be Rish and I'm not saying Rishi is a turkey, but... turkeys don't vote for Christmas (keeping things nice and seasonal 😂 )
One small snag seems to be neither are currently MP's, but why let a small matter like that get in the way of a good plot? 😂
Not being an MP doesn't seem to have got in the way of Cameron becoming foreign secretary.
No but you need a majority of Tory MPs to vote for you to become Tory leader and CCHQ to agree to put you on the approved candidates' list. Not just 1 PM to give you a peerage and the FO
You also need to be an MP to be leader of the party under its constitution, though I suppose someone creative soul could argue they could ask for anyone, even a non-MP, to be the PM without that person being leader of the party.
Can't imagine the Palace would find that very proper in terms of said person having the confidence of the Commons.
One small snag seems to be neither are currently MP's, but why let a small matter like that get in the way of a good plot? 😂
Not being an MP doesn't seem to have got in the way of Cameron becoming foreign secretary.
No but you need a majority of Tory MPs to vote for you to become Tory leader and CCHQ to agree to put you on the approved candidates' list. Not just 1 PM to give you a peerage and the FO
You also need to be an MP to be leader of the party under its constitution, though I suppose someone creative soul could argue they could ask for anyone, even a non-MP, to be the PM without that person being leader of the party.
Can't imagine the Palace would find that very proper in terms of said person having the confidence of the Commons.
Yes, hence you need to be on the CCHQ approved candidates list to even become a Tory MP if you are not in the Commons now as Boris isn't
After tomorrow there is one weekend left before families get together for Xmas holidays...that winter break will shape the way many think about politics for the next year. What are the givens in those Xmas pudding conversations?
One small snag seems to be neither are currently MP's, but why let a small matter like that get in the way of a good plot? 😂
Not being an MP doesn't seem to have got in the way of Cameron becoming foreign secretary.
No but you need a majority of Tory MPs to vote for you to become Tory leader and CCHQ to agree to put you on the approved candidates' list. Not just 1 PM to give you a peerage and the FO
You also need to be an MP to be leader of the party under its constitution, though I suppose someone creative soul could argue they could ask for anyone, even a non-MP, to be the PM without that person being leader of the party.
Can't imagine the Palace would find that very proper in terms of said person having the confidence of the Commons.
There is a precedent within living memory with Lord Home to become Con leader and PM from HoL.
If the Tories went down that route it's more likely to be Lord / Baron Cameron than Boris or Nigel though... Kleenex 3-Ply at the ready for @TheScreamingEagles 😂
One small snag seems to be neither are currently MP's, but why let a small matter like that get in the way of a good plot? 😂
Not being an MP doesn't seem to have got in the way of Cameron becoming foreign secretary.
No but you need a majority of Tory MPs to vote for you to become Tory leader and CCHQ to agree to put you on the approved candidates' list. Not just 1 PM to give you a peerage and the FO
You also need to be an MP to be leader of the party under its constitution, though I suppose someone creative soul could argue they could ask for anyone, even a non-MP, to be the PM without that person being leader of the party.
Can't imagine the Palace would find that very proper in terms of said person having the confidence of the Commons.
There is a precedent within living memory with Lord Home to become Con leader and PM from HoL.
If the Tories went down that route it's more likely to be Lord / Baron Cameron than Boris or Nigel though... Kleenex 3-Ply at the ready for @TheScreamingEagles 😂
Yes but back then the Magic Circle elected Tory leaders, not even the majority of Tory MPs and Tory members certainly never got a say
> Robert F. Kennedy (Senior) did NOT declare his candidacy until AFTER the 1968 NH Primary; which was one of the reason why Eugene McCarthy and his supporters were so bitter about RFK's entry into the race . . . and (in their view) stealing McCarthy's electoral laundry off the clothes line.
Can personally testify to the depth of that bitterness, which affected relations between former McCarthy and Kennedy supporters for decades after 1968.
I was fond of Gene McCarthy and was actually offered the unpaid job as European organiser for his failing 3rd party bid 4 years later.
And were you neat and clean for Gene? OR quite the reverse?!?!
Were you organizing Democrats Abroad? Or at least attempting to do so, versus McGovernites?
One small snag seems to be neither are currently MP's, but why let a small matter like that get in the way of a good plot? 😂
Not being an MP doesn't seem to have got in the way of Cameron becoming foreign secretary.
No but you need a majority of Tory MPs to vote for you to become Tory leader and CCHQ to agree to put you on the approved candidates' list. Not just 1 PM to give you a peerage and the FO
You also need to be an MP to be leader of the party under its constitution, though I suppose someone creative soul could argue they could ask for anyone, even a non-MP, to be the PM without that person being leader of the party.
Can't imagine the Palace would find that very proper in terms of said person having the confidence of the Commons.
There is a precedent within living memory with Lord Home to become Con leader and PM from HoL.
If the Tories went down that route it's more likely to be Lord / Baron Cameron than Boris or Nigel though... Kleenex 3-Ply at the ready for @TheScreamingEagles 😂
Yes but back then the Magic Circle elected Tory leaders, not even the majority of Tory MPs and Tory members certainly never got a say
Hey, I never said it was likely.
Just thought I'd give TSE a pre-Christmas climax at the possibility Dave could become PM again 😂
> Robert F. Kennedy (Senior) did NOT declare his candidacy until AFTER the 1968 NH Primary; which was one of the reason why Eugene McCarthy and his supporters were so bitter about RFK's entry into the race . . . and (in their view) stealing McCarthy's electoral laundry off the clothes line.
Can personally testify to the depth of that bitterness, which affected relations between former McCarthy and Kennedy supporters for decades after 1968.
I was fond of Gene McCarthy and was actually offered the unpaid job as European organiser for his failing 3rd party bid 4 years later.
Hi Nick, does this tweet refer to you? Someone mentioned it over at the VoteUK discussion forum.
> Robert F. Kennedy (Senior) did NOT declare his candidacy until AFTER the 1968 NH Primary; which was one of the reason why Eugene McCarthy and his supporters were so bitter about RFK's entry into the race . . . and (in their view) stealing McCarthy's electoral laundry off the clothes line.
Can personally testify to the depth of that bitterness, which affected relations between former McCarthy and Kennedy supporters for decades after 1968.
I was fond of Gene McCarthy and was actually offered the unpaid job as European organiser for his failing 3rd party bid 4 years later.
For all those of you getting whiplash about our former Eurocommunist and Labour MP's position in this, I need to point out that Senator Joseph McCarthy and Senator Eugene McCarthy were (very) different people.
Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D-Minnesota) had close ties with Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) organized post-WW2 by liberal Democrats opposed to Communism and associated "fellow travelers."
Gene McC started out as an anti-Communist, in line with his Catholicism, which was both ethnic AND intellectual. Though he had little affinity or sympathy for Joe McCarthy (as Andy notes.)
Perspectives had shifted somewhat of course by end of 1960s . . .
It's been reported elsewhere that the Finns, themselves, have concluded that both countries are acting as bad actors.
If Putin consolidates in Ukraine and moves on to the Baltic states - former Soviet republics - then Finland, a former Russian Grand Duchy, would be next on the list. Will the Baltics become the next Balkans?
That I think depends on
a) Putin winning or drawing his war in Ukraine. b) Whether Europe, including Western Europe, can present a credible deterrence, or a clear prospect of a credible deterrence, at the point when he wants to make his move.
Such an attack really would change everything, being the first such attack since NATO was formed. Compared with such a step the rest of the conflicts around are little local difficulties. Any future unpredictable. If Trump were in charge, doubly so as the UK and France would need to check their matches are not damp, the password is written on a slip of paper and they can remember the key safe combination number.
I don't know what France are doing, but very little viewable beyond the end of Rishi Sunak's nose is imo being done in the UK before the Election.
Both UK defence spending, and UK committed support for Ukraine, have been cut in real terms recently, and the latest analsyses have identified gaping holes in future funding for basic programmes.
We'll be lining up firmly behind Poland.
This has to end. We have to tell the fucking pensioners (of which I will soon be one) that the mollycoddling is over. We cannot afford a welfare state as we’ve known it. We need defence spending of 5% to stop everyone being killed
The MoD has 35 brass bands, 17 golf courses, 500 horses, 10 flying WW2 aircraft and a school of bagpiping.
They've got plenty of money; they just don't spend it wisely.
I can kind of understand the WW2 aircraft as that's essentially part of the PR budget and stirs up warm feelings among bloviating gammons or whatever, so may well be worth the stupid maintenance costs for sake of the positive image. If I was doing their comms I'd probably say some number of horses for ceremonial purposes was useful, and that brass instruments for even 35 bands doesn't cost that much (so long as you don't go heavy on the Tubas).
But why on earth do they need their own golf courses? There's tons of the buggers all over the place.
Bunkers are a key defensive position.
And clubs are very low maintenance weapons. That is the only fair way to consider the issue.
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 22m Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
This seems a bit like the January 2010 plot to oust El Gord that eventually ended up in failure...
Where are they now?
None are MPs me thinks? I am mis-remembering the people?
Well no, most on them were Blairites, so if they survived 2010 and 2015, Jezza would've got rid of them subsequently...
Giovanni's in Covent Garden. As an aside, can we note that newspaper websites are starting to use longer headlines that would be out of the question on newsprint?
"And they’re off: Kemi Badenoch takes an early lead in the Tory leadership stakes It is a measure of Rishi Sunak’s weakness that the contest to replace him is in full swing, writes John Rentoul"
Comments
Laschet was on the centrist Merkel wing of the CDU, Merz is on the rightwing of it and that wing wants its chance now.
No Thatcher most certainly is relevant, she won even if alternative leaders like Heath and Whitelaw may have polled better
They've got plenty of money; they just don't spend it wisely.
So the fact that an upstart insurgent like Senator McCarthy could even come close to LBJ in the snows of New Hampshire, was a BIG shock.
Fact that ALL of the votes LBJ got in NH were WRITE-INS might have tempered the assessment that the primary was moral-political defeat for him. Seeing as how winning write-in support is functionally tougher than garnering votes when your name is printed on the ballot.
However, this did NOT soften the blow or the shock. Perhaps because 1968 New Hampshire Primary took place right after the Tet Offensive - and even bigger shock that definitely cut into support for LBJ and boosted McCarthy, including by some NH Dems who were not (yet) anti-war BUT who wanted to register a protest vote.
Yours truly actually remember seeing reports on TV evening news (ABC, CBS or NBC) about 1968 New Hampshire primary. Specifically, about college students who were coming to the state "neat and clean for Gene" campaigning for McCarthy.
And saw President Johnson on TV when he announced he was NOT a candidate for re-election. Which was yet another shock . . . in a year with even more shocking shocks to come . . .
As Mrs Thatcher noted:
All our problems have come from mainland Europe and all the solutions have come from the English-speaking nations across the world.
And then they will spend the next half-century blaming us for rescuing them from their own incompetence and decadence.
One assumes the cost of 35 brass bands (effectively an after school club for enlisted members), 17 golf courses (leisure facilities on classified areas where the public isn't allowed near), 500 horses + 10 propaganda weapons (how many turn out for the RAF displays?) is under £150m.
I don't think any of Dura Ace's examples are egregious spending, when you can put the cost of the whole lot under the cost of one nuke.
And those 500 horses might even come in handy if there's a solar flare that renders cars useless.
Paul Mason
@paulmasonnews
·
22m
Seems to me sections of the Tory right are, inexplicably to the rest of us, determined to oust Sunak by January and install Braverman or a Truss proxy. It's not a drill, or a prep for opposition. They want a sixth Tory PM. 🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
as per his wiki entry
1952 election - In 1951, the United States ratified the 22nd Amendment, making a president ineligible for election to a third term or for election to a second full term after serving more than two remaining years of a term of a previously elected president. The latter clause did not apply to Truman's situation in 1952 because of a grandfather clause exempting the incumbent president.
Therefore, he seriously considered running for another term in 1952 and left his name on the ballot in the New Hampshire primary. However, all his close advisors, pointing to his age, his failing abilities, and his poor showing in the polls, talked him out of it.
At the time of the 1952 New Hampshire primary, no candidate had won Truman's backing. His first choice, Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, had declined to run; Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson had also turned Truman down . . . Truman distrusted and disliked Senator [Estes] Kefauver, who had made a name for himself by his investigations of the Truman administration scandals.
Truman let his name be entered in the New Hampshire primary by supporters. The highly unpopular Truman was handily defeated by Kefauver; 18 days later the president formally announced he would not seek a second full term. Truman was eventually able to persuade Stevenson to run, and the governor gained the nomination at the 1952 Democratic National Convention. . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman
1948 New Hampshire Presidential Primary (March 11)
SSI - Among Democrats, Kefauver won 55% versus 45% for Truman; on Republican side, Eisenhower 50%, Robert Taft 39%, Harold Stassen 7%, Douglas MacArthur 3.5% (write-ins)
ADDENDUM - It was THIS New Hampshire Primary, that first made the "First in the Nation" New Hampshire Primary a REALLY big deal.
I read something the other day about how conventions had more power on those days to make someone the candidate.
Which can, according to rules, be delegated to respective national committees in certain circumstances.
ADDENDUM - The "Sherman statement" as first invoked and specified by William T Sherman in declining efforts to get him to run for President:
1884 - "I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected."
Note that in 1871, Sherman said "I hereby state, and mean all that I say, that I never have been and never will be a candidate for President; that if nominated by either party, I should peremptorily decline; and even if unanimously elected I should decline to serve."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shermanesque_statement
Many Tory MPs were waiting for its conclusion before deciding how to vote
This is likely to lead to a full-on revolt from the Tory right
None are MPs me thinks? I am mis-remembering the people?
Also - the cost of one nuke weapon would be more like 20-30 bn and the incremental cost of each nuke much less. You can't say that of the horses (primitive tech), or the Red Arrows (use standard trainer jet, at least at the moment, for which the maintenance etc would be needed anyway).
Whilst they ousted him because he kept putting them in the shit for no reason other than his own failings, it probably is true ousting Boris, followed by the even faster ousting of Truss, has given the party a taste for oustings. On top of shattering any sense of comradeship they might have had.
Perhaps we'll be going the Australia route of the last 15 years and swap PMs every 2-3 years.
Compared to the cost of keeping a nuclear deterrent and staffing all those nuclear subs, does it really matter that we are paying to hire some guy to teach soldiers the bagpipes, so they can play them at ceremonial occasions?
Assuming the 35 brass bands can pick up a gun as quickly as they can pick up a trumpet, how much do they really cost?
The worry for me on defence costs that are wasted are guns that don't work when jammed up by sand (early SA80s) or civil servants buying cheap bullets that don't work. Keeping 500 horses for ceremonial purposes, and just in case, seems less than egregious.
But why on earth do they need their own golf courses? There's tons of the buggers all over the place.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12845793/Boris-johnson-return-Prime-Minister-astonishing-plan.html
One small snag seems to be neither are currently MP's, but why let a small matter like that get in the way of a good plot? 😂
Of course, she still had leads in the polls at that time, inexplicably.
Sunak wins the VONC and goes into his 12 months protected window, but with enough votes against to weaken him. And we all know coitus interruptus provides massively more effective protection than the 1922 rules do.
Waiting after May for the election will.look even more like a risk for ignominious deposal if the locals are allowed to stand alone.
Basically, VONC means May GE to my way of thinking.
Liz Cheney runs as 3rd party?
Don't have a huge problem with people who are security cleared using those spaces as recreational facilities, if it's land that can't otherwise be used.
"Then we make our stand here. We fight for every patch of ground, every burrow, until Woundwort's army lies in ruins! We shall never surrender!"
Hazel to Watership Down in the TV series
https://watershipdown.fandom.com/wiki/Hazel
'Backbenchers who voted for [[dismal thing, time after dull time]]' is maybe less noteworthy?
Night all.
Since Sunak has neither succeeded on his own terms or set a new direction (and thus seems to have pleased neither the right nor the centre), they probably should have held firm and not ousted Truss at least, and seen what happened.
I certainly understand the choice they made, given the polling, I didn't think they'd do it but thought it made sense at the time, but the damage of repeated changes has been pretty fatal, even if Sunak had done a better job.
Will Nige still be well enough though? He'll be 65/66 by then... Around the age that those booze and cigs could start catching up with him...
Astonishing plan = astonishing that some pillock could get taken in enough to print it.
Obviously people have had challenges and won them, and some have later been ousted anyway or they have gone on to lead their party at the next GE like Major, but have many faced down a leadership challenge, won, and then gone on to more actual success? Or is it an inevitable sign of defeat one way or another, even if you survive?
I guess Corbyn technically counts since after his contest in 2016 his position was strengthened in the 2017 GE, but it never actually led to electoral success.
Trump isn't a European. Galtieri didn't come from Europe. You'd think Thatcher would have remembered that.
And anyway, who would ennoble Boris and Nige in the first place? It would have to be Rish and I'm not saying Rishi is a turkey, but... turkeys don't vote for Christmas (keeping things nice and seasonal 😂 )
Can't imagine the Palace would find that very proper in terms of said person having the confidence of the Commons.
@CatMan pointed out I posted the Opinium story from FOUR WEEKS ago
Hmmm...
Paul Mason
@paulmasonnews
After tomorrow there is one weekend left before families get together for Xmas holidays...that winter break will shape the way many think about politics for the next year. What are the givens in those Xmas pudding conversations?
If the Tories went down that route it's more likely to be Lord / Baron Cameron than Boris or Nigel though... Kleenex 3-Ply at the ready for @TheScreamingEagles 😂
Were you organizing Democrats Abroad? Or at least attempting to do so, versus McGovernites?
Just thought I'd give TSE a pre-Christmas climax at the possibility Dave could become PM again 😂
Senior members of Green Party Women (GPW) claim the group was "disaffiliated" because of their promotion of "gender-critical views".
A Green Party spokesperson said it suspended GPW for procedural reasons.
There are divisions within the Green Party about its approach to trans rights.
The party's official position is that it supports transgender people and backs making it easier to change legal sex via self-determination.
But there are long-running tensions with members who hold gender-critical beliefs, which includes that a person's sex cannot be changed.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67546751
For towing behind the motorhome as a runaround?
https://twitter.com/DidcotLabour/status/1733486402954780925
Gene McC started out as an anti-Communist, in line with his Catholicism, which was both ethnic AND intellectual. Though he had little affinity or sympathy for Joe McCarthy (as Andy notes.)
Perspectives had shifted somewhat of course by end of 1960s . . .
Perhaps as part of SNP effort to reduce highway emissions?
And clubs are very low maintenance weapons. That is the only fair way to consider the issue.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12845045/The-pasta-plotters-cooking-scheme-oust-Rishi-Sunak-revealed-MPs-political-strategists-conspire-Covent-Garden-Italian-eaterie-new-Prime-Minister-election.html
Giovanni's in Covent Garden. As an aside, can we note that newspaper websites are starting to use longer headlines that would be out of the question on newsprint?
It is a measure of Rishi Sunak’s weakness that the contest to replace him is in full swing, writes John Rentoul"
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/kemi-badenoch-tory-leadership-election-sunak-b2461313.html
LOL.