'2,086 people who were verified by CCHQ as being Conservative party members in 2022 answered a survey that was carried out across the UK from the 29th to 31st January 2024. The survey, almost three times bigger than the Conservative Home poll carried out each month which shows the most popular members of the Cabinet, has highlighted huge discontent in parts of the party as well as identifying who the Conservative Members want as leader.
When members were asked if they would vote Conservative with the following people as leader, Boris Johnson came top with 85.37 percent followed by Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg on 69.51 percent and Suella Braverman on 65.38 percent. . Only 23.63% of members said they will vote Conservative at the next General Election if Rishi Sunak remains as leader.'
This looks like the type of voter who has gone from Tory to Reform rather than the median Tory member however
If the Conservative Party were to change leader now, which of the following would you support being Prime Minister to lead us into the next General Election? (Members were asked to choose their top 3). They received the following number of votes:
Boris Johnson - 1419 Suella Braverman - 891 Jacob Rees-Mogg - 721 Penny Mordaunt - 520 Kemi Badenoch - 518 Liz Truss - 301 Priti Patel - 286 Robert Jenrick - 220 David Cameron - 100 James Cleverly - 75
What’s that bloke everyone on here says Tory voters don’t like more than any other candidate doing a distance in front?
Er, party members. Not voters in a GE.
Er, but most polls of 2019 Tory voters have him miles in front too
But people who are definitely not voting Conservative anyway prefer other Tories to him
It's the non-Tory voters the Conservatives need to attract.
You couldn’t be more wrong. It is the 2019 Tories they need, and it’s only them they could possibly get
Yup. Folk who were ok with Brexit, and mostly knew what Boris was like but voted for him anyway. Not people who think like most on this site. In fact, the very people whose views most on this site (including me by the way) often have a blind spot for.
Oh, I have no doubt that Boris would do a great job of pulling back most of the Reform vote.
But I think that's still some way away from a winning total on its own. For a start, he won't have the benefit of facing Corbyn. And there's no Brexit "get it done" factor.
And people in the developed world are hurting from higher prices, higher interest rates, and wages that have lagged. Blame for that - perhaps unfairly - is going to be laid at the Conservatives door.
Boris probably ensures that the Conservative vote does not fall below 31-32%. But at the same time, he'll probably do wonders to anti-Conservative tactical voting. He'd save his party 15 to 30 seats, but I don't see him as capable of stopping a Starmer victory.
Two awkward echoes of Corbyn- indeed the pining for Boris on the right has a lot of similarities to those who wish Jez would return on the left.
First is that, yes, they both enthused a lot of love, including from people who aren't normally supporters of their parties. But they also put off both centrists and centrist-curious members of their parties. Both Boris and Jeremy provoked people into actively voting against them, which is usually quite an achievement.
The 2019 triumph on the right happened because the Conservatives managed to unite Boris loyalists with Boris haters who hated Corbyn even more. Once the second group started to drift off, the Conservatives were in trouble. (And the Conservative poll rating has been falling fairly steadily since spring 2020, albeit with a hefty vaccine bump in the first half of 2021.)
Second, and much more important, is that the fans of both Boris and Jeremy point to their triumphs, but they were in the past. Corbyn pulled off a remarkable result (albeit losing) in 2017 and Johnson did in 2019. But subsequent events made them less popular. Jez never recovered from his apparent equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings or the growing accusations of being at least antisemitism-adjacent. Boris's image was never going to recover from the triple of the Partygate lies, the Paterson scandal and Pinchergate.
In both cases, they made the flaw we all suspected about them (that Corbyn is a dim reflexive supporter of unsavoury leftism, that Johnson doesn't tell the truth except by accident) impossible to avoid.
Yes, the Conservatives have paid a price for ditching Johnson. But that cheque was written the day they elevated him. The only question was when the devil or the electorate would cash it in.
Well it wasn’t the electorate
Listen, I am tiring of speaking to the PB brick wall about this now, so maybe I’ll stop. But when you have someone who has defied the odds to win the Mayoralty, the referendum, then a landslide I think it is foolish to get rid, especially when there’s no real candidate to take over. The people who voted for him, when polled, still say they prefer him to any other Tory, he wipes the floor with his rival in the charisma stakes and would obviously win over more of the public in a campaign. If people refuse, or don’t want, to believe it, that’s their choice, let’s leave it there
Shortly after Liz Truss and co took to the stage to launch the new Popular Conservatism - or "PopCon" - movement, pitching itself as an anti-woke, anti-green, anti-elite, anti-immigration voice of the voter, my phone buzzed with a message from a very disgruntled MP. "What everyone is privately thinking is that the rules must change on selection of the party leader," said the former minister. "But no-one will initiate, so our party drifts to the right.
"The selection of leader must return to parliamentarians, so that these subtribes won't schmooze our base with their populist message." In the hall in Westminster, where Ms Truss led the PopCon rally, other MPs such as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg professed their loyalty to the ex-PM, insisting this was about the battle for ideas and taking power back from elites - in this case Davos man or Supreme Court judges - and giving it back to the people.
But for many of his colleagues, these groups are only serving to push away some of their most centrist voters, making the party look more divided and leaving Rishi Sunak looking weak.
And it won't have gone unnoticed with many of you that there is a certain irony that the most unpopular prime minister of modern times, Ms Truss, is now reinventing herself as the leader of the Popular Conservatives after bombing with the vast majority of the voters in her time as leader, according to polls
I can't think of any reason why the selection of leader should return to parliamentarians, other than that parliamentarians think they're more important than everyone else.
Quite. It's a remarkable phrase in its pungent reek of entitlement, and complete lack of self-awareness.
This is the Conservative party you’re talking about. Of course they’re entitled. Just like all those members who think it’s democratic for them regularly to choose new PMs without a general election.
Shortly after Liz Truss and co took to the stage to launch the new Popular Conservatism - or "PopCon" - movement, pitching itself as an anti-woke, anti-green, anti-elite, anti-immigration voice of the voter, my phone buzzed with a message from a very disgruntled MP. "What everyone is privately thinking is that the rules must change on selection of the party leader," said the former minister. "But no-one will initiate, so our party drifts to the right.
"The selection of leader must return to parliamentarians, so that these subtribes won't schmooze our base with their populist message." In the hall in Westminster, where Ms Truss led the PopCon rally, other MPs such as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg professed their loyalty to the ex-PM, insisting this was about the battle for ideas and taking power back from elites - in this case Davos man or Supreme Court judges - and giving it back to the people.
But for many of his colleagues, these groups are only serving to push away some of their most centrist voters, making the party look more divided and leaving Rishi Sunak looking weak.
And it won't have gone unnoticed with many of you that there is a certain irony that the most unpopular prime minister of modern times, Ms Truss, is now reinventing herself as the leader of the Popular Conservatives after bombing with the vast majority of the voters in her time as leader, according to polls
I can't think of any reason why the selection of leader should return to parliamentarians, other than that parliamentarians think they're more important than everyone else.
Quite. It's a remarkable phrase in its pungent reek of entitlement, and complete lack of self-awareness.
It's called parliamentary democracy. If you don't like it campaign for a change to our constitution.
Where is it written into the stone tablets of parliamentary democracy that a party leader must be elected solely by its MPs? I think a far better system would be for MPs to elect a shortlist of 3 or more to send to members. Most of the more questionable leadership choices have been caused by better candidates being held back from the membership round.
When did the country ever vote for Liz Truss to be PM?
If the MPs select their leader at least the PM would be selected by those elected by the people. As it is PM Truss was chosen by 150,000 unelected and unrepresentative people.
Swalwell: And all we've heard for years is noun, verb, border. So you get your border deal. Led by the second most conservative in the senate, and you're walking away from it. You're walking away from it because Trump https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1754973208866910230
Shortly after Liz Truss and co took to the stage to launch the new Popular Conservatism - or "PopCon" - movement, pitching itself as an anti-woke, anti-green, anti-elite, anti-immigration voice of the voter, my phone buzzed with a message from a very disgruntled MP. "What everyone is privately thinking is that the rules must change on selection of the party leader," said the former minister. "But no-one will initiate, so our party drifts to the right.
"The selection of leader must return to parliamentarians, so that these subtribes won't schmooze our base with their populist message." In the hall in Westminster, where Ms Truss led the PopCon rally, other MPs such as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg professed their loyalty to the ex-PM, insisting this was about the battle for ideas and taking power back from elites - in this case Davos man or Supreme Court judges - and giving it back to the people.
But for many of his colleagues, these groups are only serving to push away some of their most centrist voters, making the party look more divided and leaving Rishi Sunak looking weak.
And it won't have gone unnoticed with many of you that there is a certain irony that the most unpopular prime minister of modern times, Ms Truss, is now reinventing herself as the leader of the Popular Conservatives after bombing with the vast majority of the voters in her time as leader, according to polls
I can't think of any reason why the selection of leader should return to parliamentarians, other than that parliamentarians think they're more important than everyone else.
Quite. It's a remarkable phrase in its pungent reek of entitlement, and complete lack of self-awareness.
It's called parliamentary democracy. If you don't like it campaign for a change to our constitution.
Where is it written into the stone tablets of parliamentary democracy that a party leader must be elected solely by its MPs? I think a far better system would be for MPs to elect a shortlist of 3 or more to send to members. Most of the more questionable leadership choices have been caused by better candidates being held back from the membership round.
When did the country ever vote for THE TRUSS to be PM?
If the MPs select their leader at least the PM would be selected by those elected by the people. As it is
T
R
U
S
S
was chosen by 150,000 unelected and unrepresentative people.
'2,086 people who were verified by CCHQ as being Conservative party members in 2022 answered a survey that was carried out across the UK from the 29th to 31st January 2024. The survey, almost three times bigger than the Conservative Home poll carried out each month which shows the most popular members of the Cabinet, has highlighted huge discontent in parts of the party as well as identifying who the Conservative Members want as leader.
When members were asked if they would vote Conservative with the following people as leader, Boris Johnson came top with 85.37 percent followed by Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg on 69.51 percent and Suella Braverman on 65.38 percent. . Only 23.63% of members said they will vote Conservative at the next General Election if Rishi Sunak remains as leader.'
This looks like the type of voter who has gone from Tory to Reform rather than the median Tory member however
If the Conservative Party were to change leader now, which of the following would you support being Prime Minister to lead us into the next General Election? (Members were asked to choose their top 3). They received the following number of votes:
Boris Johnson - 1419 Suella Braverman - 891 Jacob Rees-Mogg - 721 Penny Mordaunt - 520 Kemi Badenoch - 518 Liz Truss - 301 Priti Patel - 286 Robert Jenrick - 220 David Cameron - 100 James Cleverly - 75
What’s that bloke everyone on here says Tory voters don’t like more than any other candidate doing a distance in front?
Er, party members. Not voters in a GE.
Er, but most polls of 2019 Tory voters have him miles in front too
But people who are definitely not voting Conservative anyway prefer other Tories to him
It's the non-Tory voters the Conservatives need to attract.
You couldn’t be more wrong. It is the 2019 Tories they need, and it’s only them they could possibly get
Yup. Folk who were ok with Brexit, and mostly knew what Boris was like but voted for him anyway. Not people who think like most on this site. In fact, the very people whose views most on this site (including me by the way) often have a blind spot for.
Oh, I have no doubt that Boris would do a great job of pulling back most of the Reform vote.
But I think that's still some way away from a winning total on its own. For a start, he won't have the benefit of facing Corbyn. And there's no Brexit "get it done" factor.
And people in the developed world are hurting from higher prices, higher interest rates, and wages that have lagged. Blame for that - perhaps unfairly - is going to be laid at the Conservatives door.
Boris probably ensures that the Conservative vote does not fall below 31-32%. But at the same time, he'll probably do wonders to anti-Conservative tactical voting. He'd save his party 15 to 30 seats, but I don't see him as capable of stopping a Starmer victory.
Two awkward echoes of Corbyn- indeed the pining for Boris on the right has a lot of similarities to those who wish Jez would return on the left.
First is that, yes, they both enthused a lot of love, including from people who aren't normally supporters of their parties. But they also put off both centrists and centrist-curious members of their parties. Both Boris and Jeremy provoked people into actively voting against them, which is usually quite an achievement.
The 2019 triumph on the right happened because the Conservatives managed to unite Boris loyalists with Boris haters who hated Corbyn even more. Once the second group started to drift off, the Conservatives were in trouble. (And the Conservative poll rating has been falling fairly steadily since spring 2020, albeit with a hefty vaccine bump in the first half of 2021.)
Second, and much more important, is that the fans of both Boris and Jeremy point to their triumphs, but they were in the past. Corbyn pulled off a remarkable result (albeit losing) in 2017 and Johnson did in 2019. But subsequent events made them less popular. Jez never recovered from his apparent equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings or the growing accusations of being at least antisemitism-adjacent. Boris's image was never going to recover from the triple of the Partygate lies, the Paterson scandal and Pinchergate.
In both cases, they made the flaw we all suspected about them (that Corbyn is a dim reflexive supporter of unsavoury leftism, that Johnson doesn't tell the truth except by accident) impossible to avoid.
Yes, the Conservatives have paid a price for ditching Johnson. But that cheque was written the day they elevated him. The only question was when the devil or the electorate would cash it in.
Well it wasn’t the electorate
Listen, I am tiring of speaking to the PB brick wall about this now, so maybe I’ll stop. But when you have someone who has defied the odds to win the Mayoralty, the referendum, then a landslide I think it is foolish to get rid, especially when there’s no real candidate to take over. The people who voted for him, when polled, still say they prefer him to any other Tory, he wipes the floor with his rival in the charisma stakes and would obviously win over more of the public in a campaign. If people refuse, or don’t want, to believe it, that’s their choice, let’s leave it there
Boris resigned. He wasn't forced out by anyone but himself.
He could have fought and won in Uxbridge but was too frit.
»In einigen europäischen Ländern – wie etwa in Großbritannien – gibt es eine parlamentarische Monarchie, wobei der König oder die Königin – ähnlich wie der Bundespräsident bei uns – keine politische Macht mehr hat, sondern als Staatsoberhaupt nur noch repräsentative Aufgaben wahrnimmt. Fänden Sie es gut, wenn es auch in Deutschland statt des Bundespräsidenten noch einen König oder eine Königin gäbe oder fänden Sie das nicht gut?«
Translated: "In some European countries - such as the UK - there is a parliamentary monarchy, where the king or queen - similar to the federal president in Germany - no longer has any political power, but only fulfils representative tasks as head of state. Would you be in favour of a king or queen instead of a federal president in Germany, or would you be against that?"
In favour 8% Against 89%
People vote for the status quo everywhere but in monarchies this is somewhat mitigated by monarchy being an inherent nonsense ("It kind of works, so we'll stick with it")
Looked at in a particular pragmatic way, all dignified, as opposed to efficient, bits of the state are inherent nonsense. In that light, monarchy is no worse than all the others.
Dignified bits of the state have wide ramifications. One of them would be having buildings like the HoP and Westminster Hall, rather than a conference centre in Barking or Hull, rented by the day, to meet in.
That's somewhat glosses over the intellectual issue with the monarchy, which is the absence of any requirement for the head of state to be competent or even sane. I do realise you can still end up with someone like Trump in a republic but at least he went through some sort of selection process.
My theory is that societies with less sophisticated governance tolerated the occasional imbecile as monarch, which was a disaster each time it happened, because in the round it was better than constant succession wars. In principle we're better than that now.
'2,086 people who were verified by CCHQ as being Conservative party members in 2022 answered a survey that was carried out across the UK from the 29th to 31st January 2024. The survey, almost three times bigger than the Conservative Home poll carried out each month which shows the most popular members of the Cabinet, has highlighted huge discontent in parts of the party as well as identifying who the Conservative Members want as leader.
When members were asked if they would vote Conservative with the following people as leader, Boris Johnson came top with 85.37 percent followed by Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg on 69.51 percent and Suella Braverman on 65.38 percent. . Only 23.63% of members said they will vote Conservative at the next General Election if Rishi Sunak remains as leader.'
This looks like the type of voter who has gone from Tory to Reform rather than the median Tory member however
If the Conservative Party were to change leader now, which of the following would you support being Prime Minister to lead us into the next General Election? (Members were asked to choose their top 3). They received the following number of votes:
Boris Johnson - 1419 Suella Braverman - 891 Jacob Rees-Mogg - 721 Penny Mordaunt - 520 Kemi Badenoch - 518 Liz Truss - 301 Priti Patel - 286 Robert Jenrick - 220 David Cameron - 100 James Cleverly - 75
What’s that bloke everyone on here says Tory voters don’t like more than any other candidate doing a distance in front?
Er, party members. Not voters in a GE.
Er, but most polls of 2019 Tory voters have him miles in front too
But people who are definitely not voting Conservative anyway prefer other Tories to him
It's the non-Tory voters the Conservatives need to attract.
You couldn’t be more wrong. It is the 2019 Tories they need, and it’s only them they could possibly get
Yup. Folk who were ok with Brexit, and mostly knew what Boris was like but voted for him anyway. Not people who think like most on this site. In fact, the very people whose views most on this site (including me by the way) often have a blind spot for.
Oh, I have no doubt that Boris would do a great job of pulling back most of the Reform vote.
But I think that's still some way away from a winning total on its own. For a start, he won't have the benefit of facing Corbyn. And there's no Brexit "get it done" factor.
And people in the developed world are hurting from higher prices, higher interest rates, and wages that have lagged. Blame for that - perhaps unfairly - is going to be laid at the Conservatives door.
Boris probably ensures that the Conservative vote does not fall below 31-32%. But at the same time, he'll probably do wonders to anti-Conservative tactical voting. He'd save his party 15 to 30 seats, but I don't see him as capable of stopping a Starmer victory.
Two awkward echoes of Corbyn- indeed the pining for Boris on the right has a lot of similarities to those who wish Jez would return on the left.
First is that, yes, they both enthused a lot of love, including from people who aren't normally supporters of their parties. But they also put off both centrists and centrist-curious members of their parties. Both Boris and Jeremy provoked people into actively voting against them, which is usually quite an achievement.
The 2019 triumph on the right happened because the Conservatives managed to unite Boris loyalists with Boris haters who hated Corbyn even more. Once the second group started to drift off, the Conservatives were in trouble. (And the Conservative poll rating has been falling fairly steadily since spring 2020, albeit with a hefty vaccine bump in the first half of 2021.)
Second, and much more important, is that the fans of both Boris and Jeremy point to their triumphs, but they were in the past. Corbyn pulled off a remarkable result (albeit losing) in 2017 and Johnson did in 2019. But subsequent events made them less popular. Jez never recovered from his apparent equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings or the growing accusations of being at least antisemitism-adjacent. Boris's image was never going to recover from the triple of the Partygate lies, the Paterson scandal and Pinchergate.
In both cases, they made the flaw we all suspected about them (that Corbyn is a dim reflexive supporter of unsavoury leftism, that Johnson doesn't tell the truth except by accident) impossible to avoid.
Yes, the Conservatives have paid a price for ditching Johnson. But that cheque was written the day they elevated him. The only question was when the devil or the electorate would cash it in.
Well it wasn’t the electorate
Listen, I am tiring of speaking to the PB brick wall about this now, so maybe I’ll stop. But when you have someone who has defied the odds to win the Mayoralty, the referendum, then a landslide I think it is foolish to get rid, especially when there’s no real candidate to take over. The people who voted for him, when polled, still say they prefer him to any other Tory, he wipes the floor with his rival in the charisma stakes and would obviously win over more of the public in a campaign. If people refuse, or don’t want, to believe it, that’s their choice, let’s leave it there
I suppose if you describe bumbling incompetence and the odd joke as charisma yes.
Interesting to hear @TuckerCarlson claim that “no western journalist has bothered to interview” Putin since the invasion of Ukraine. We’ve lodged several requests with the Kremlin in the last 18 months. Always a ‘no’ for us. https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1754993410535026753
Tucker demonstrates, yet again, that he’s a propagandist not a journalist.
'2,086 people who were verified by CCHQ as being Conservative party members in 2022 answered a survey that was carried out across the UK from the 29th to 31st January 2024. The survey, almost three times bigger than the Conservative Home poll carried out each month which shows the most popular members of the Cabinet, has highlighted huge discontent in parts of the party as well as identifying who the Conservative Members want as leader.
When members were asked if they would vote Conservative with the following people as leader, Boris Johnson came top with 85.37 percent followed by Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg on 69.51 percent and Suella Braverman on 65.38 percent. . Only 23.63% of members said they will vote Conservative at the next General Election if Rishi Sunak remains as leader.'
This looks like the type of voter who has gone from Tory to Reform rather than the median Tory member however
If the Conservative Party were to change leader now, which of the following would you support being Prime Minister to lead us into the next General Election? (Members were asked to choose their top 3). They received the following number of votes:
Boris Johnson - 1419 Suella Braverman - 891 Jacob Rees-Mogg - 721 Penny Mordaunt - 520 Kemi Badenoch - 518 Liz Truss - 301 Priti Patel - 286 Robert Jenrick - 220 David Cameron - 100 James Cleverly - 75
What’s that bloke everyone on here says Tory voters don’t like more than any other candidate doing a distance in front?
Er, party members. Not voters in a GE.
Er, but most polls of 2019 Tory voters have him miles in front too
But people who are definitely not voting Conservative anyway prefer other Tories to him
It's the non-Tory voters the Conservatives need to attract.
You couldn’t be more wrong. It is the 2019 Tories they need, and it’s only them they could possibly get
Yup. Folk who were ok with Brexit, and mostly knew what Boris was like but voted for him anyway. Not people who think like most on this site. In fact, the very people whose views most on this site (including me by the way) often have a blind spot for.
Oh, I have no doubt that Boris would do a great job of pulling back most of the Reform vote.
But I think that's still some way away from a winning total on its own. For a start, he won't have the benefit of facing Corbyn. And there's no Brexit "get it done" factor.
And people in the developed world are hurting from higher prices, higher interest rates, and wages that have lagged. Blame for that - perhaps unfairly - is going to be laid at the Conservatives door.
Boris probably ensures that the Conservative vote does not fall below 31-32%. But at the same time, he'll probably do wonders to anti-Conservative tactical voting. He'd save his party 15 to 30 seats, but I don't see him as capable of stopping a Starmer victory.
Two awkward echoes of Corbyn- indeed the pining for Boris on the right has a lot of similarities to those who wish Jez would return on the left.
First is that, yes, they both enthused a lot of love, including from people who aren't normally supporters of their parties. But they also put off both centrists and centrist-curious members of their parties. Both Boris and Jeremy provoked people into actively voting against them, which is usually quite an achievement.
The 2019 triumph on the right happened because the Conservatives managed to unite Boris loyalists with Boris haters who hated Corbyn even more. Once the second group started to drift off, the Conservatives were in trouble. (And the Conservative poll rating has been falling fairly steadily since spring 2020, albeit with a hefty vaccine bump in the first half of 2021.)
Second, and much more important, is that the fans of both Boris and Jeremy point to their triumphs, but they were in the past. Corbyn pulled off a remarkable result (albeit losing) in 2017 and Johnson did in 2019. But subsequent events made them less popular. Jez never recovered from his apparent equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings or the growing accusations of being at least antisemitism-adjacent. Boris's image was never going to recover from the triple of the Partygate lies, the Paterson scandal and Pinchergate.
In both cases, they made the flaw we all suspected about them (that Corbyn is a dim reflexive supporter of unsavoury leftism, that Johnson doesn't tell the truth except by accident) impossible to avoid.
Yes, the Conservatives have paid a price for ditching Johnson. But that cheque was written the day they elevated him. The only question was when the devil or the electorate would cash it in.
Well it wasn’t the electorate
Listen, I am tiring of speaking to the PB brick wall about this now, so maybe I’ll stop. But when you have someone who has defied the odds to win the Mayoralty, the referendum, then a landslide I think it is foolish to get rid, especially when there’s no real candidate to take over. The people who voted for him, when polled, still say they prefer him to any other Tory, he wipes the floor with his rival in the charisma stakes and would obviously win over more of the public in a campaign. If people refuse, or don’t want, to believe it, that’s their choice, let’s leave it there
I suppose if you describe bumbling incompetence and the odd joke as charisma yes.
That’s just your bias, I’m using the polling, not my opinion
IPSOS MORI poll on ‘who has the most personality’ and Boris beat Sir Keir by at least 30 points, whereas Sunak & Sir Keir are neck and neck
Shortly after Liz Truss and co took to the stage to launch the new Popular Conservatism - or "PopCon" - movement, pitching itself as an anti-woke, anti-green, anti-elite, anti-immigration voice of the voter, my phone buzzed with a message from a very disgruntled MP. "What everyone is privately thinking is that the rules must change on selection of the party leader," said the former minister. "But no-one will initiate, so our party drifts to the right.
"The selection of leader must return to parliamentarians, so that these subtribes won't schmooze our base with their populist message." In the hall in Westminster, where Ms Truss led the PopCon rally, other MPs such as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg professed their loyalty to the ex-PM, insisting this was about the battle for ideas and taking power back from elites - in this case Davos man or Supreme Court judges - and giving it back to the people.
But for many of his colleagues, these groups are only serving to push away some of their most centrist voters, making the party look more divided and leaving Rishi Sunak looking weak.
And it won't have gone unnoticed with many of you that there is a certain irony that the most unpopular prime minister of modern times, Ms Truss, is now reinventing herself as the leader of the Popular Conservatives after bombing with the vast majority of the voters in her time as leader, according to polls
I can't think of any reason why the selection of leader should return to parliamentarians, other than that parliamentarians think they're more important than everyone else.
Quite. It's a remarkable phrase in its pungent reek of entitlement, and complete lack of self-awareness.
It's called parliamentary democracy. If you don't like it campaign for a change to our constitution.
Where is it written into the stone tablets of parliamentary democracy that a party leader must be elected solely by its MPs? I think a far better system would be for MPs to elect a shortlist of 3 or more to send to members. Most of the more questionable leadership choices have been caused by better candidates being held back from the membership round.
When did the country ever vote for Liz Truss to be PM?
If the MPs select their leader at least the PM would be selected by those elected by the people. As it is PM Truss was chosen by 150,000 unelected and unrepresentative people.
Though to be fair - getting 150,001 votes would have sealed her place in history and/or Trivial Pursuit.
Shortly after Liz Truss and co took to the stage to launch the new Popular Conservatism - or "PopCon" - movement, pitching itself as an anti-woke, anti-green, anti-elite, anti-immigration voice of the voter, my phone buzzed with a message from a very disgruntled MP. "What everyone is privately thinking is that the rules must change on selection of the party leader," said the former minister. "But no-one will initiate, so our party drifts to the right.
"The selection of leader must return to parliamentarians, so that these subtribes won't schmooze our base with their populist message." In the hall in Westminster, where Ms Truss led the PopCon rally, other MPs such as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg professed their loyalty to the ex-PM, insisting this was about the battle for ideas and taking power back from elites - in this case Davos man or Supreme Court judges - and giving it back to the people.
But for many of his colleagues, these groups are only serving to push away some of their most centrist voters, making the party look more divided and leaving Rishi Sunak looking weak.
And it won't have gone unnoticed with many of you that there is a certain irony that the most unpopular prime minister of modern times, Ms Truss, is now reinventing herself as the leader of the Popular Conservatives after bombing with the vast majority of the voters in her time as leader, according to polls
I can't think of any reason why the selection of leader should return to parliamentarians, other than that parliamentarians think they're more important than everyone else.
Quite. It's a remarkable phrase in its pungent reek of entitlement, and complete lack of self-awareness.
It's called parliamentary democracy. If you don't like it campaign for a change to our constitution.
Where is it written into the stone tablets of parliamentary democracy that a party leader must be elected solely by its MPs? I think a far better system would be for MPs to elect a shortlist of 3 or more to send to members. Most of the more questionable leadership choices have been caused by better candidates being held back from the membership round.
When did the country ever vote for THE TRUSS to be PM?
If the MPs select their leader at least the PM would be selected by those elected by the people. As it is
T
R
U
S
S
was chosen by 150,000 unelected and unrepresentative people.
'2,086 people who were verified by CCHQ as being Conservative party members in 2022 answered a survey that was carried out across the UK from the 29th to 31st January 2024. The survey, almost three times bigger than the Conservative Home poll carried out each month which shows the most popular members of the Cabinet, has highlighted huge discontent in parts of the party as well as identifying who the Conservative Members want as leader.
When members were asked if they would vote Conservative with the following people as leader, Boris Johnson came top with 85.37 percent followed by Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg on 69.51 percent and Suella Braverman on 65.38 percent. . Only 23.63% of members said they will vote Conservative at the next General Election if Rishi Sunak remains as leader.'
This looks like the type of voter who has gone from Tory to Reform rather than the median Tory member however
If the Conservative Party were to change leader now, which of the following would you support being Prime Minister to lead us into the next General Election? (Members were asked to choose their top 3). They received the following number of votes:
Boris Johnson - 1419 Suella Braverman - 891 Jacob Rees-Mogg - 721 Penny Mordaunt - 520 Kemi Badenoch - 518 Liz Truss - 301 Priti Patel - 286 Robert Jenrick - 220 David Cameron - 100 James Cleverly - 75
What’s that bloke everyone on here says Tory voters don’t like more than any other candidate doing a distance in front?
Er, party members. Not voters in a GE.
Er, but most polls of 2019 Tory voters have him miles in front too
But people who are definitely not voting Conservative anyway prefer other Tories to him
It's the non-Tory voters the Conservatives need to attract.
You couldn’t be more wrong. It is the 2019 Tories they need, and it’s only them they could possibly get
Yup. Folk who were ok with Brexit, and mostly knew what Boris was like but voted for him anyway. Not people who think like most on this site. In fact, the very people whose views most on this site (including me by the way) often have a blind spot for.
Oh, I have no doubt that Boris would do a great job of pulling back most of the Reform vote.
But I think that's still some way away from a winning total on its own. For a start, he won't have the benefit of facing Corbyn. And there's no Brexit "get it done" factor.
And people in the developed world are hurting from higher prices, higher interest rates, and wages that have lagged. Blame for that - perhaps unfairly - is going to be laid at the Conservatives door.
Boris probably ensures that the Conservative vote does not fall below 31-32%. But at the same time, he'll probably do wonders to anti-Conservative tactical voting. He'd save his party 15 to 30 seats, but I don't see him as capable of stopping a Starmer victory.
Two awkward echoes of Corbyn- indeed the pining for Boris on the right has a lot of similarities to those who wish Jez would return on the left.
First is that, yes, they both enthused a lot of love, including from people who aren't normally supporters of their parties. But they also put off both centrists and centrist-curious members of their parties. Both Boris and Jeremy provoked people into actively voting against them, which is usually quite an achievement.
The 2019 triumph on the right happened because the Conservatives managed to unite Boris loyalists with Boris haters who hated Corbyn even more. Once the second group started to drift off, the Conservatives were in trouble. (And the Conservative poll rating has been falling fairly steadily since spring 2020, albeit with a hefty vaccine bump in the first half of 2021.)
Second, and much more important, is that the fans of both Boris and Jeremy point to their triumphs, but they were in the past. Corbyn pulled off a remarkable result (albeit losing) in 2017 and Johnson did in 2019. But subsequent events made them less popular. Jez never recovered from his apparent equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings or the growing accusations of being at least antisemitism-adjacent. Boris's image was never going to recover from the triple of the Partygate lies, the Paterson scandal and Pinchergate.
In both cases, they made the flaw we all suspected about them (that Corbyn is a dim reflexive supporter of unsavoury leftism, that Johnson doesn't tell the truth except by accident) impossible to avoid.
Yes, the Conservatives have paid a price for ditching Johnson. But that cheque was written the day they elevated him. The only question was when the devil or the electorate would cash it in.
Well it wasn’t the electorate
Listen, I am tiring of speaking to the PB brick wall about this now, so maybe I’ll stop. But when you have someone who has defied the odds to win the Mayoralty, the referendum, then a landslide I think it is foolish to get rid, especially when there’s no real candidate to take over. The people who voted for him, when polled, still say they prefer him to any other Tory, he wipes the floor with his rival in the charisma stakes and would obviously win over more of the public in a campaign. If people refuse, or don’t want, to believe it, that’s their choice, let’s leave it there
I suppose if you describe bumbling incompetence and the odd joke as charisma yes.
That’s just your bias, I’m using the polling, not my opinion
IPSOS MORI poll on ‘who has the most personality’ and Boris beat Sir Keir by at least 30 points, whereas Sunak & Sir Keir are neck and neck
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Shortly after Liz Truss and co took to the stage to launch the new Popular Conservatism - or "PopCon" - movement, pitching itself as an anti-woke, anti-green, anti-elite, anti-immigration voice of the voter, my phone buzzed with a message from a very disgruntled MP. "What everyone is privately thinking is that the rules must change on selection of the party leader," said the former minister. "But no-one will initiate, so our party drifts to the right.
"The selection of leader must return to parliamentarians, so that these subtribes won't schmooze our base with their populist message." In the hall in Westminster, where Ms Truss led the PopCon rally, other MPs such as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg professed their loyalty to the ex-PM, insisting this was about the battle for ideas and taking power back from elites - in this case Davos man or Supreme Court judges - and giving it back to the people.
But for many of his colleagues, these groups are only serving to push away some of their most centrist voters, making the party look more divided and leaving Rishi Sunak looking weak.
And it won't have gone unnoticed with many of you that there is a certain irony that the most unpopular prime minister of modern times, Ms Truss, is now reinventing herself as the leader of the Popular Conservatives after bombing with the vast majority of the voters in her time as leader, according to polls
Yes, quite right, how dare these upstarts disturb our door-knockers and leaflet-deliverers with all this talk of 'democracy' and 'low taxes' and a 'small state', it's disgusting. Bad enough we have to pretend we like these people during jumble sales and fetes, without them being encouraged to think they can actually set the party's agenda!
No. The issue with today’s launch was the complete absence of new ideas. Recycled woke bashing, which is in itself recycled “political correctness gone mad” and the tired “silent majority/shy Tory” tripe resurrected after 30 years. It was transparently an attempt to curry favour for opposition leadership roles, preaching to the converted, rather than a serious attempt to win a general election.
Conservatism needs a credo that aims to supplant and replace the woke/pc ideology, rather than just complain about the negative externalities of those things. If your opponents are changing things, and you're complaining about it, you're losing. But that does not in any way invalidate the arguments against woke/pc, which are as valid now as they ever were.
People think that the 'woke' are still in the ascendency, Britain has a 'progressive majority' and that the tories need to go to the 'centre' by embracing Starmerism. It is all essentially wishful thinking and goes against the experience of other comparable countries in Europe.
Interesting to hear @TuckerCarlson claim that “no western journalist has bothered to interview” Putin since the invasion of Ukraine. We’ve lodged several requests with the Kremlin in the last 18 months. Always a ‘no’ for us. https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1754993410535026753
Tucker demonstrates, yet again, that he’s a propagandist not a journalist.
I thought we disapproved of his outrageous decision to interview Putin - now it appears the BBC have made repeated requests to interview Putin as well? Can someone do a memo; it's all very confusing.
Interesting to hear @TuckerCarlson claim that “no western journalist has bothered to interview” Putin since the invasion of Ukraine. We’ve lodged several requests with the Kremlin in the last 18 months. Always a ‘no’ for us. https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1754993410535026753
Tucker demonstrates, yet again, that he’s a propagandist not a journalist.
I thought we disapproved of his outrageous decision to interview Putin - now it appears the BBC have made repeated requests to interview Putin as well? Can someone do a memo; it's all very confusing.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Interesting to hear @TuckerCarlson claim that “no western journalist has bothered to interview” Putin since the invasion of Ukraine. We’ve lodged several requests with the Kremlin in the last 18 months. Always a ‘no’ for us. https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1754993410535026753
Tucker demonstrates, yet again, that he’s a propagandist not a journalist.
Quite something to complain about how not enough American journalists are reporting on the Russian side of Putin's invasion of Ukraine when two of them – Evan Gershkovich and Alsu Kurmasheva – are *in jail right now* for doing just that https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1754945619871838374
Interesting to hear @TuckerCarlson claim that “no western journalist has bothered to interview” Putin since the invasion of Ukraine. We’ve lodged several requests with the Kremlin in the last 18 months. Always a ‘no’ for us. https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1754993410535026753
Tucker demonstrates, yet again, that he’s a propagandist not a journalist.
Last time SteveR was near Putin iirc was in some kind of stage managed hour or three of Q&As with Putin and a load of journos and despite having his hand up the entire time - he was not called to ask a question.
Shortly after Liz Truss and co took to the stage to launch the new Popular Conservatism - or "PopCon" - movement, pitching itself as an anti-woke, anti-green, anti-elite, anti-immigration voice of the voter, my phone buzzed with a message from a very disgruntled MP. "What everyone is privately thinking is that the rules must change on selection of the party leader," said the former minister. "But no-one will initiate, so our party drifts to the right.
"The selection of leader must return to parliamentarians, so that these subtribes won't schmooze our base with their populist message." In the hall in Westminster, where Ms Truss led the PopCon rally, other MPs such as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg professed their loyalty to the ex-PM, insisting this was about the battle for ideas and taking power back from elites - in this case Davos man or Supreme Court judges - and giving it back to the people.
But for many of his colleagues, these groups are only serving to push away some of their most centrist voters, making the party look more divided and leaving Rishi Sunak looking weak.
And it won't have gone unnoticed with many of you that there is a certain irony that the most unpopular prime minister of modern times, Ms Truss, is now reinventing herself as the leader of the Popular Conservatives after bombing with the vast majority of the voters in her time as leader, according to polls
Yes, quite right, how dare these upstarts disturb our door-knockers and leaflet-deliverers with all this talk of 'democracy' and 'low taxes' and a 'small state', it's disgusting. Bad enough we have to pretend we like these people during jumble sales and fetes, without them being encouraged to think they can actually set the party's agenda!
No. The issue with today’s launch was the complete absence of new ideas. Recycled woke bashing, which is in itself recycled “political correctness gone mad” and the tired “silent majority/shy Tory” tripe resurrected after 30 years. It was transparently an attempt to curry favour for opposition leadership roles, preaching to the converted, rather than a serious attempt to win a general election.
Conservatism needs a credo that aims to supplant and replace the woke/pc ideology, rather than just complain about the negative externalities of those things. If your opponents are changing things, and you're complaining about it, you're losing. But that does not in any way invalidate the arguments against woke/pc, which are as valid now as they ever were.
People think that the 'woke' are still in the ascendency, Britain has a 'progressive majority' and that the tories need to go to the 'centre' by embracing Starmerism. It is all essentially wishful thinking and goes against the experience of other comparable countries in Europe.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Shortly after Liz Truss and co took to the stage to launch the new Popular Conservatism - or "PopCon" - movement, pitching itself as an anti-woke, anti-green, anti-elite, anti-immigration voice of the voter, my phone buzzed with a message from a very disgruntled MP. "What everyone is privately thinking is that the rules must change on selection of the party leader," said the former minister. "But no-one will initiate, so our party drifts to the right.
"The selection of leader must return to parliamentarians, so that these subtribes won't schmooze our base with their populist message." In the hall in Westminster, where Ms Truss led the PopCon rally, other MPs such as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg professed their loyalty to the ex-PM, insisting this was about the battle for ideas and taking power back from elites - in this case Davos man or Supreme Court judges - and giving it back to the people.
But for many of his colleagues, these groups are only serving to push away some of their most centrist voters, making the party look more divided and leaving Rishi Sunak looking weak.
And it won't have gone unnoticed with many of you that there is a certain irony that the most unpopular prime minister of modern times, Ms Truss, is now reinventing herself as the leader of the Popular Conservatives after bombing with the vast majority of the voters in her time as leader, according to polls
Yes, quite right, how dare these upstarts disturb our door-knockers and leaflet-deliverers with all this talk of 'democracy' and 'low taxes' and a 'small state', it's disgusting. Bad enough we have to pretend we like these people during jumble sales and fetes, without them being encouraged to think they can actually set the party's agenda!
No. The issue with today’s launch was the complete absence of new ideas. Recycled woke bashing, which is in itself recycled “political correctness gone mad” and the tired “silent majority/shy Tory” tripe resurrected after 30 years. It was transparently an attempt to curry favour for opposition leadership roles, preaching to the converted, rather than a serious attempt to win a general election.
Conservatism needs a credo that aims to supplant and replace the woke/pc ideology, rather than just complain about the negative externalities of those things. If your opponents are changing things, and you're complaining about it, you're losing. But that does not in any way invalidate the arguments against woke/pc, which are as valid now as they ever were.
People think that the 'woke' are still in the ascendency, Britain has a 'progressive majority' and that the tories need to go to the 'centre' by embracing Starmerism. It is all essentially wishful thinking and goes against the experience of other comparable countries in Europe.
I have no idea who 'the woke' are. I suspect the concept of a group of 'woke' people being in the ascendancy is a figment of right-wingers' fevered imaginations.
Interesting to hear @TuckerCarlson claim that “no western journalist has bothered to interview” Putin since the invasion of Ukraine. We’ve lodged several requests with the Kremlin in the last 18 months. Always a ‘no’ for us. https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1754993410535026753
Tucker demonstrates, yet again, that he’s a propagandist not a journalist.
I thought we disapproved of his outrageous decision to interview Putin - now it appears the BBC have made repeated requests to interview Putin as well? Can someone do a memo; it's all very confusing.
It all depends on what is asked at the interview.
It's an interview, not a Select Committee. Even a very soft interview will be revealing, if only of what Putin wants people to think at the moment.
Shortly after Liz Truss and co took to the stage to launch the new Popular Conservatism - or "PopCon" - movement, pitching itself as an anti-woke, anti-green, anti-elite, anti-immigration voice of the voter, my phone buzzed with a message from a very disgruntled MP. "What everyone is privately thinking is that the rules must change on selection of the party leader," said the former minister. "But no-one will initiate, so our party drifts to the right.
"The selection of leader must return to parliamentarians, so that these subtribes won't schmooze our base with their populist message." In the hall in Westminster, where Ms Truss led the PopCon rally, other MPs such as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg professed their loyalty to the ex-PM, insisting this was about the battle for ideas and taking power back from elites - in this case Davos man or Supreme Court judges - and giving it back to the people.
But for many of his colleagues, these groups are only serving to push away some of their most centrist voters, making the party look more divided and leaving Rishi Sunak looking weak.
And it won't have gone unnoticed with many of you that there is a certain irony that the most unpopular prime minister of modern times, Ms Truss, is now reinventing herself as the leader of the Popular Conservatives after bombing with the vast majority of the voters in her time as leader, according to polls
Yes, quite right, how dare these upstarts disturb our door-knockers and leaflet-deliverers with all this talk of 'democracy' and 'low taxes' and a 'small state', it's disgusting. Bad enough we have to pretend we like these people during jumble sales and fetes, without them being encouraged to think they can actually set the party's agenda!
No. The issue with today’s launch was the complete absence of new ideas. Recycled woke bashing, which is in itself recycled “political correctness gone mad” and the tired “silent majority/shy Tory” tripe resurrected after 30 years. It was transparently an attempt to curry favour for opposition leadership roles, preaching to the converted, rather than a serious attempt to win a general election.
Conservatism needs a credo that aims to supplant and replace the woke/pc ideology, rather than just complain about the negative externalities of those things. If your opponents are changing things, and you're complaining about it, you're losing. But that does not in any way invalidate the arguments against woke/pc, which are as valid now as they ever were.
People think that the 'woke' are still in the ascendency, Britain has a 'progressive majority' and that the tories need to go to the 'centre' by embracing Starmerism. It is all essentially wishful thinking and goes against the experience of other comparable countries in Europe.
Can anyone actually define starmerism.
It's a bit like a BA pilot who's had a covid vaccine.
Shortly after Liz Truss and co took to the stage to launch the new Popular Conservatism - or "PopCon" - movement, pitching itself as an anti-woke, anti-green, anti-elite, anti-immigration voice of the voter, my phone buzzed with a message from a very disgruntled MP. "What everyone is privately thinking is that the rules must change on selection of the party leader," said the former minister. "But no-one will initiate, so our party drifts to the right.
"The selection of leader must return to parliamentarians, so that these subtribes won't schmooze our base with their populist message." In the hall in Westminster, where Ms Truss led the PopCon rally, other MPs such as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg professed their loyalty to the ex-PM, insisting this was about the battle for ideas and taking power back from elites - in this case Davos man or Supreme Court judges - and giving it back to the people.
But for many of his colleagues, these groups are only serving to push away some of their most centrist voters, making the party look more divided and leaving Rishi Sunak looking weak.
And it won't have gone unnoticed with many of you that there is a certain irony that the most unpopular prime minister of modern times, Ms Truss, is now reinventing herself as the leader of the Popular Conservatives after bombing with the vast majority of the voters in her time as leader, according to polls
Yes, quite right, how dare these upstarts disturb our door-knockers and leaflet-deliverers with all this talk of 'democracy' and 'low taxes' and a 'small state', it's disgusting. Bad enough we have to pretend we like these people during jumble sales and fetes, without them being encouraged to think they can actually set the party's agenda!
No. The issue with today’s launch was the complete absence of new ideas. Recycled woke bashing, which is in itself recycled “political correctness gone mad” and the tired “silent majority/shy Tory” tripe resurrected after 30 years. It was transparently an attempt to curry favour for opposition leadership roles, preaching to the converted, rather than a serious attempt to win a general election.
Conservatism needs a credo that aims to supplant and replace the woke/pc ideology, rather than just complain about the negative externalities of those things. If your opponents are changing things, and you're complaining about it, you're losing. But that does not in any way invalidate the arguments against woke/pc, which are as valid now as they ever were.
People think that the 'woke' are still in the ascendency, Britain has a 'progressive majority' and that the tories need to go to the 'centre' by embracing Starmerism. It is all essentially wishful thinking and goes against the experience of other comparable countries in Europe.
I have no idea who 'the woke' are. I suspect the concept of a group of 'woke' people being in the ascendancy is a figment of right-wingers' fevered imaginations.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Interesting to hear @TuckerCarlson claim that “no western journalist has bothered to interview” Putin since the invasion of Ukraine. We’ve lodged several requests with the Kremlin in the last 18 months. Always a ‘no’ for us. https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1754993410535026753
Tucker demonstrates, yet again, that he’s a propagandist not a journalist.
I thought we disapproved of his outrageous decision to interview Putin - now it appears the BBC have made repeated requests to interview Putin as well? Can someone do a memo; it's all very confusing.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
I think Andy is suggesting, probably correctly, that these were conversions of convenience.
Is he condemning most of protestant England who gave zero sh*ts beyond "same old tosh, different frock"? Is he woke? Or... something? I feel we should be told.
Shortly after Liz Truss and co took to the stage to launch the new Popular Conservatism - or "PopCon" - movement, pitching itself as an anti-woke, anti-green, anti-elite, anti-immigration voice of the voter, my phone buzzed with a message from a very disgruntled MP. "What everyone is privately thinking is that the rules must change on selection of the party leader," said the former minister. "But no-one will initiate, so our party drifts to the right.
"The selection of leader must return to parliamentarians, so that these subtribes won't schmooze our base with their populist message." In the hall in Westminster, where Ms Truss led the PopCon rally, other MPs such as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg professed their loyalty to the ex-PM, insisting this was about the battle for ideas and taking power back from elites - in this case Davos man or Supreme Court judges - and giving it back to the people.
But for many of his colleagues, these groups are only serving to push away some of their most centrist voters, making the party look more divided and leaving Rishi Sunak looking weak.
And it won't have gone unnoticed with many of you that there is a certain irony that the most unpopular prime minister of modern times, Ms Truss, is now reinventing herself as the leader of the Popular Conservatives after bombing with the vast majority of the voters in her time as leader, according to polls
I can't think of any reason why the selection of leader should return to parliamentarians, other than that parliamentarians think they're more important than everyone else.
Quite. It's a remarkable phrase in its pungent reek of entitlement, and complete lack of self-awareness.
It's called parliamentary democracy. If you don't like it campaign for a change to our constitution.
Where is it written into the stone tablets of parliamentary democracy that a party leader must be elected solely by its MPs? I think a far better system would be for MPs to elect a shortlist of 3 or more to send to members. Most of the more questionable leadership choices have been caused by better candidates being held back from the membership round.
I think the leader should be voted for by the people standing for election in the next GE. They have skin in the game.
'2,086 people who were verified by CCHQ as being Conservative party members in 2022 answered a survey that was carried out across the UK from the 29th to 31st January 2024. The survey, almost three times bigger than the Conservative Home poll carried out each month which shows the most popular members of the Cabinet, has highlighted huge discontent in parts of the party as well as identifying who the Conservative Members want as leader.
When members were asked if they would vote Conservative with the following people as leader, Boris Johnson came top with 85.37 percent followed by Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg on 69.51 percent and Suella Braverman on 65.38 percent. . Only 23.63% of members said they will vote Conservative at the next General Election if Rishi Sunak remains as leader.'
This looks like the type of voter who has gone from Tory to Reform rather than the median Tory member however
If the Conservative Party were to change leader now, which of the following would you support being Prime Minister to lead us into the next General Election? (Members were asked to choose their top 3). They received the following number of votes:
Boris Johnson - 1419 Suella Braverman - 891 Jacob Rees-Mogg - 721 Penny Mordaunt - 520 Kemi Badenoch - 518 Liz Truss - 301 Priti Patel - 286 Robert Jenrick - 220 David Cameron - 100 James Cleverly - 75
What’s that bloke everyone on here says Tory voters don’t like more than any other candidate doing a distance in front?
Er, party members. Not voters in a GE.
Er, but most polls of 2019 Tory voters have him miles in front too
But people who are definitely not voting Conservative anyway prefer other Tories to him
It's the non-Tory voters the Conservatives need to attract.
You couldn’t be more wrong. It is the 2019 Tories they need, and it’s only them they could possibly get
Yup. Folk who were ok with Brexit, and mostly knew what Boris was like but voted for him anyway. Not people who think like most on this site. In fact, the very people whose views most on this site (including me by the way) often have a blind spot for.
Oh, I have no doubt that Boris would do a great job of pulling back most of the Reform vote.
But I think that's still some way away from a winning total on its own. For a start, he won't have the benefit of facing Corbyn. And there's no Brexit "get it done" factor.
And people in the developed world are hurting from higher prices, higher interest rates, and wages that have lagged. Blame for that - perhaps unfairly - is going to be laid at the Conservatives door.
Boris probably ensures that the Conservative vote does not fall below 31-32%. But at the same time, he'll probably do wonders to anti-Conservative tactical voting. He'd save his party 15 to 30 seats, but I don't see him as capable of stopping a Starmer victory.
Two awkward echoes of Corbyn- indeed the pining for Boris on the right has a lot of similarities to those who wish Jez would return on the left.
First is that, yes, they both enthused a lot of love, including from people who aren't normally supporters of their parties. But they also put off both centrists and centrist-curious members of their parties. Both Boris and Jeremy provoked people into actively voting against them, which is usually quite an achievement.
The 2019 triumph on the right happened because the Conservatives managed to unite Boris loyalists with Boris haters who hated Corbyn even more. Once the second group started to drift off, the Conservatives were in trouble. (And the Conservative poll rating has been falling fairly steadily since spring 2020, albeit with a hefty vaccine bump in the first half of 2021.)
Second, and much more important, is that the fans of both Boris and Jeremy point to their triumphs, but they were in the past. Corbyn pulled off a remarkable result (albeit losing) in 2017 and Johnson did in 2019. But subsequent events made them less popular. Jez never recovered from his apparent equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings or the growing accusations of being at least antisemitism-adjacent. Boris's image was never going to recover from the triple of the Partygate lies, the Paterson scandal and Pinchergate.
In both cases, they made the flaw we all suspected about them (that Corbyn is a dim reflexive supporter of unsavoury leftism, that Johnson doesn't tell the truth except by accident) impossible to avoid.
Yes, the Conservatives have paid a price for ditching Johnson. But that cheque was written the day they elevated him. The only question was when the devil or the electorate would cash it in.
Well it wasn’t the electorate
Listen, I am tiring of speaking to the PB brick wall about this now, so maybe I’ll stop. But when you have someone who has defied the odds to win the Mayoralty, the referendum, then a landslide I think it is foolish to get rid, especially when there’s no real candidate to take over. The people who voted for him, when polled, still say they prefer him to any other Tory, he wipes the floor with his rival in the charisma stakes and would obviously win over more of the public in a campaign. If people refuse, or don’t want, to believe it, that’s their choice, let’s leave it there
I suppose if you describe bumbling incompetence and the odd joke as charisma yes.
That’s just your bias, I’m using the polling, not my opinion
IPSOS MORI poll on ‘who has the most personality’ and Boris beat Sir Keir by at least 30 points, whereas Sunak & Sir Keir are neck and neck
Personality doesnt neccesarily mean votes.
It has in almost every GE for the last forty odd years
Interesting to hear @TuckerCarlson claim that “no western journalist has bothered to interview” Putin since the invasion of Ukraine. We’ve lodged several requests with the Kremlin in the last 18 months. Always a ‘no’ for us. https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1754993410535026753
Tucker demonstrates, yet again, that he’s a propagandist not a journalist.
Quite something to complain about how not enough American journalists are reporting on the Russian side of Putin's invasion of Ukraine when two of them – Evan Gershkovich and Alsu Kurmasheva – are *in jail right now* for doing just that https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1754945619871838374
Presumably Tucker pressed him on that point, right @williamglenn
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
I think Andy is suggesting, probably correctly, that these were conversions of convenience.
I would hope that converting to christianity gives you no extra brownie points when seeking asylum because that is equal bollocks
Asylum seekers thinking it might gain extra brownie points ≠ extra brownie points actually gained.
Asylum seekers generally have lawyers advising them, I am pretty sure they will be telling their clients get a cat/wife so you can claim family ahead of converting to christianity
'2,086 people who were verified by CCHQ as being Conservative party members in 2022 answered a survey that was carried out across the UK from the 29th to 31st January 2024. The survey, almost three times bigger than the Conservative Home poll carried out each month which shows the most popular members of the Cabinet, has highlighted huge discontent in parts of the party as well as identifying who the Conservative Members want as leader.
When members were asked if they would vote Conservative with the following people as leader, Boris Johnson came top with 85.37 percent followed by Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg on 69.51 percent and Suella Braverman on 65.38 percent. . Only 23.63% of members said they will vote Conservative at the next General Election if Rishi Sunak remains as leader.'
This looks like the type of voter who has gone from Tory to Reform rather than the median Tory member however
If the Conservative Party were to change leader now, which of the following would you support being Prime Minister to lead us into the next General Election? (Members were asked to choose their top 3). They received the following number of votes:
Boris Johnson - 1419 Suella Braverman - 891 Jacob Rees-Mogg - 721 Penny Mordaunt - 520 Kemi Badenoch - 518 Liz Truss - 301 Priti Patel - 286 Robert Jenrick - 220 David Cameron - 100 James Cleverly - 75
What’s that bloke everyone on here says Tory voters don’t like more than any other candidate doing a distance in front?
Er, party members. Not voters in a GE.
Er, but most polls of 2019 Tory voters have him miles in front too
But people who are definitely not voting Conservative anyway prefer other Tories to him
It's the non-Tory voters the Conservatives need to attract.
You couldn’t be more wrong. It is the 2019 Tories they need, and it’s only them they could possibly get
Yup. Folk who were ok with Brexit, and mostly knew what Boris was like but voted for him anyway. Not people who think like most on this site. In fact, the very people whose views most on this site (including me by the way) often have a blind spot for.
Oh, I have no doubt that Boris would do a great job of pulling back most of the Reform vote.
But I think that's still some way away from a winning total on its own. For a start, he won't have the benefit of facing Corbyn. And there's no Brexit "get it done" factor.
And people in the developed world are hurting from higher prices, higher interest rates, and wages that have lagged. Blame for that - perhaps unfairly - is going to be laid at the Conservatives door.
Boris probably ensures that the Conservative vote does not fall below 31-32%. But at the same time, he'll probably do wonders to anti-Conservative tactical voting. He'd save his party 15 to 30 seats, but I don't see him as capable of stopping a Starmer victory.
Two awkward echoes of Corbyn- indeed the pining for Boris on the right has a lot of similarities to those who wish Jez would return on the left.
First is that, yes, they both enthused a lot of love, including from people who aren't normally supporters of their parties. But they also put off both centrists and centrist-curious members of their parties. Both Boris and Jeremy provoked people into actively voting against them, which is usually quite an achievement.
The 2019 triumph on the right happened because the Conservatives managed to unite Boris loyalists with Boris haters who hated Corbyn even more. Once the second group started to drift off, the Conservatives were in trouble. (And the Conservative poll rating has been falling fairly steadily since spring 2020, albeit with a hefty vaccine bump in the first half of 2021.)
Second, and much more important, is that the fans of both Boris and Jeremy point to their triumphs, but they were in the past. Corbyn pulled off a remarkable result (albeit losing) in 2017 and Johnson did in 2019. But subsequent events made them less popular. Jez never recovered from his apparent equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings or the growing accusations of being at least antisemitism-adjacent. Boris's image was never going to recover from the triple of the Partygate lies, the Paterson scandal and Pinchergate.
In both cases, they made the flaw we all suspected about them (that Corbyn is a dim reflexive supporter of unsavoury leftism, that Johnson doesn't tell the truth except by accident) impossible to avoid.
Yes, the Conservatives have paid a price for ditching Johnson. But that cheque was written the day they elevated him. The only question was when the devil or the electorate would cash it in.
Well it wasn’t the electorate
Listen, I am tiring of speaking to the PB brick wall about this now, so maybe I’ll stop. But when you have someone who has defied the odds to win the Mayoralty, the referendum, then a landslide I think it is foolish to get rid, especially when there’s no real candidate to take over. The people who voted for him, when polled, still say they prefer him to any other Tory, he wipes the floor with his rival in the charisma stakes and would obviously win over more of the public in a campaign. If people refuse, or don’t want, to believe it, that’s their choice, let’s leave it there
Despite Boris's ratings taking a big hit post partygate - though he was never as popular as fans would suggest, just always more so than deeply flawed opponents, both in London and the UK, It wasn't the perception of unpopularity that led Tory MPs to abandon Boris. It was the fact he got caught telling huge fibs - not just to the public, but to them - so many times, they lost trust and had had enough.
Ultimately, there was only so many times ministers could do media rounds in which they had to sacrifice their credibility for a PM they know is happy to throw them under the bus and make them look ridiculous before they snapped.
Now bringing him back despite knowing what he is would be a very sorry admission about the state of the Tory Party and Tory MPs - that they are so rubbish their best chance is someone they abandoned for being a huckster - that they won't do it.
Shortly after Liz Truss and co took to the stage to launch the new Popular Conservatism - or "PopCon" - movement, pitching itself as an anti-woke, anti-green, anti-elite, anti-immigration voice of the voter, my phone buzzed with a message from a very disgruntled MP. "What everyone is privately thinking is that the rules must change on selection of the party leader," said the former minister. "But no-one will initiate, so our party drifts to the right.
"The selection of leader must return to parliamentarians, so that these subtribes won't schmooze our base with their populist message." In the hall in Westminster, where Ms Truss led the PopCon rally, other MPs such as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg professed their loyalty to the ex-PM, insisting this was about the battle for ideas and taking power back from elites - in this case Davos man or Supreme Court judges - and giving it back to the people.
But for many of his colleagues, these groups are only serving to push away some of their most centrist voters, making the party look more divided and leaving Rishi Sunak looking weak.
And it won't have gone unnoticed with many of you that there is a certain irony that the most unpopular prime minister of modern times, Ms Truss, is now reinventing herself as the leader of the Popular Conservatives after bombing with the vast majority of the voters in her time as leader, according to polls
Yes, quite right, how dare these upstarts disturb our door-knockers and leaflet-deliverers with all this talk of 'democracy' and 'low taxes' and a 'small state', it's disgusting. Bad enough we have to pretend we like these people during jumble sales and fetes, without them being encouraged to think they can actually set the party's agenda!
No. The issue with today’s launch was the complete absence of new ideas. Recycled woke bashing, which is in itself recycled “political correctness gone mad” and the tired “silent majority/shy Tory” tripe resurrected after 30 years. It was transparently an attempt to curry favour for opposition leadership roles, preaching to the converted, rather than a serious attempt to win a general election.
Conservatism needs a credo that aims to supplant and replace the woke/pc ideology, rather than just complain about the negative externalities of those things. If your opponents are changing things, and you're complaining about it, you're losing. But that does not in any way invalidate the arguments against woke/pc, which are as valid now as they ever were.
Difficultvto do when vompanies receive investment depending on how woke they are. The power of the likes of blackrock.
Good to know that we don't need to listen to you on subjects related to corporate finance.
We are launching a Revolutionary Communist Party – a party that can represent the revolutionary aspirations of workers and youth in Britain. The ruling class and their state are fighting back, as we would expect. To fight back, we need a fighting fund!
Shortly after Liz Truss and co took to the stage to launch the new Popular Conservatism - or "PopCon" - movement, pitching itself as an anti-woke, anti-green, anti-elite, anti-immigration voice of the voter, my phone buzzed with a message from a very disgruntled MP. "What everyone is privately thinking is that the rules must change on selection of the party leader," said the former minister. "But no-one will initiate, so our party drifts to the right.
"The selection of leader must return to parliamentarians, so that these subtribes won't schmooze our base with their populist message." In the hall in Westminster, where Ms Truss led the PopCon rally, other MPs such as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg professed their loyalty to the ex-PM, insisting this was about the battle for ideas and taking power back from elites - in this case Davos man or Supreme Court judges - and giving it back to the people.
But for many of his colleagues, these groups are only serving to push away some of their most centrist voters, making the party look more divided and leaving Rishi Sunak looking weak.
And it won't have gone unnoticed with many of you that there is a certain irony that the most unpopular prime minister of modern times, Ms Truss, is now reinventing herself as the leader of the Popular Conservatives after bombing with the vast majority of the voters in her time as leader, according to polls
Yes, quite right, how dare these upstarts disturb our door-knockers and leaflet-deliverers with all this talk of 'democracy' and 'low taxes' and a 'small state', it's disgusting. Bad enough we have to pretend we like these people during jumble sales and fetes, without them being encouraged to think they can actually set the party's agenda!
No. The issue with today’s launch was the complete absence of new ideas. Recycled woke bashing, which is in itself recycled “political correctness gone mad” and the tired “silent majority/shy Tory” tripe resurrected after 30 years. It was transparently an attempt to curry favour for opposition leadership roles, preaching to the converted, rather than a serious attempt to win a general election.
Conservatism needs a credo that aims to supplant and replace the woke/pc ideology, rather than just complain about the negative externalities of those things. If your opponents are changing things, and you're complaining about it, you're losing. But that does not in any way invalidate the arguments against woke/pc, which are as valid now as they ever were.
People think that the 'woke' are still in the ascendency, Britain has a 'progressive majority' and that the tories need to go to the 'centre' by embracing Starmerism. It is all essentially wishful thinking and goes against the experience of other comparable countries in Europe.
I have no idea who 'the woke' are. I suspect the concept of a group of 'woke' people being in the ascendancy is a figment of right-wingers' fevered imaginations.
Interesting to hear @TuckerCarlson claim that “no western journalist has bothered to interview” Putin since the invasion of Ukraine. We’ve lodged several requests with the Kremlin in the last 18 months. Always a ‘no’ for us. https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1754993410535026753
Tucker demonstrates, yet again, that he’s a propagandist not a journalist.
Quite something to complain about how not enough American journalists are reporting on the Russian side of Putin's invasion of Ukraine when two of them – Evan Gershkovich and Alsu Kurmasheva – are *in jail right now* for doing just that https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1754945619871838374
Presumably Tucker pressed him on that point, right @williamglenn
It’s not even as though someone’s going to be able to sue his employer for several hundred million this time around.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Shortly after Liz Truss and co took to the stage to launch the new Popular Conservatism - or "PopCon" - movement, pitching itself as an anti-woke, anti-green, anti-elite, anti-immigration voice of the voter, my phone buzzed with a message from a very disgruntled MP. "What everyone is privately thinking is that the rules must change on selection of the party leader," said the former minister. "But no-one will initiate, so our party drifts to the right.
"The selection of leader must return to parliamentarians, so that these subtribes won't schmooze our base with their populist message." In the hall in Westminster, where Ms Truss led the PopCon rally, other MPs such as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg professed their loyalty to the ex-PM, insisting this was about the battle for ideas and taking power back from elites - in this case Davos man or Supreme Court judges - and giving it back to the people.
But for many of his colleagues, these groups are only serving to push away some of their most centrist voters, making the party look more divided and leaving Rishi Sunak looking weak.
And it won't have gone unnoticed with many of you that there is a certain irony that the most unpopular prime minister of modern times, Ms Truss, is now reinventing herself as the leader of the Popular Conservatives after bombing with the vast majority of the voters in her time as leader, according to polls
Yes, quite right, how dare these upstarts disturb our door-knockers and leaflet-deliverers with all this talk of 'democracy' and 'low taxes' and a 'small state', it's disgusting. Bad enough we have to pretend we like these people during jumble sales and fetes, without them being encouraged to think they can actually set the party's agenda!
No. The issue with today’s launch was the complete absence of new ideas. Recycled woke bashing, which is in itself recycled “political correctness gone mad” and the tired “silent majority/shy Tory” tripe resurrected after 30 years. It was transparently an attempt to curry favour for opposition leadership roles, preaching to the converted, rather than a serious attempt to win a general election.
Conservatism needs a credo that aims to supplant and replace the woke/pc ideology, rather than just complain about the negative externalities of those things. If your opponents are changing things, and you're complaining about it, you're losing. But that does not in any way invalidate the arguments against woke/pc, which are as valid now as they ever were.
Difficultvto do when vompanies receive investment depending on how woke they are. The power of the likes of blackrock.
Good to know that we don't need to listen to you on subjects related to corporate finance.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
Username checks out
I don't believe I have ever claimed to be a christian, but thats not the point. We shouldn't care about peoples faith as long as they are willing to adjust their attitudes to values such as female equality, tolerance of those that are homosexuals and just generally thinking all people are equal
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
I think Andy is suggesting, probably correctly, that these were conversions of convenience.
My church has supported asylum seekers for years, mostly with practical issues like clothes, translators, legal advice etc. I don't think we have made a single convert, but that isn't why we do our asylum work.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
I think Andy is suggesting, probably correctly, that these were conversions of convenience.
My church has supported asylum seekers for years, mostly with practical issues like clothes, translators, legal advice etc. I don't think we have made a single convert, but that isn't why we do our asylum work.
Which shouldnt be the point and kudos to your church.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
Username checks out
I don't believe I have ever claimed to be a christian, but thats not the point. We shouldn't care about peoples faith as long as they are willing to adjust their attitudes to values such as female equality, tolerance of those that are homosexuals and just generally thinking all people are equal
Careful, you'll have the Wokefinder General after you.
Seriously though, I think you make a fair point. Could the Right to Reside be made conditional on signing up to a set of principles, including the equality laws? Seems like a good idea to me.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
I think Andy is suggesting, probably correctly, that these were conversions of convenience.
My church has supported asylum seekers for years, mostly with practical issues like clothes, translators, legal advice etc. I don't think we have made a single convert, but that isn't why we do our asylum work.
Have you signed any of them up for a Spectator subscription though? I think that is the main point of contention.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
Username checks out
I don't believe I have ever claimed to be a christian, but thats not the point. We shouldn't care about peoples faith as long as they are willing to adjust their attitudes to values such as female equality, tolerance of those that are homosexuals and just generally thinking all people are equal
Careful, you'll have the Wokefinder General after you.
Seriously though, I think you make a fair point. Could the Right to Reside be made conditional on signing up to a set of principles, including the equality laws? Seems like a good idea to me.
I would agree with that certainly. I lived in slough for 30 odd years and some of what I saw in the immigrant community was deeply disturbing. Not most of them but there were certainly those that brought attitudes from the old country that I would deem not worthy of people living in this country and sadly there is also a similar number of native born britons that have been here generations with the same sort of attitudes
Shortly after Liz Truss and co took to the stage to launch the new Popular Conservatism - or "PopCon" - movement, pitching itself as an anti-woke, anti-green, anti-elite, anti-immigration voice of the voter, my phone buzzed with a message from a very disgruntled MP. "What everyone is privately thinking is that the rules must change on selection of the party leader," said the former minister. "But no-one will initiate, so our party drifts to the right.
"The selection of leader must return to parliamentarians, so that these subtribes won't schmooze our base with their populist message." In the hall in Westminster, where Ms Truss led the PopCon rally, other MPs such as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg professed their loyalty to the ex-PM, insisting this was about the battle for ideas and taking power back from elites - in this case Davos man or Supreme Court judges - and giving it back to the people.
But for many of his colleagues, these groups are only serving to push away some of their most centrist voters, making the party look more divided and leaving Rishi Sunak looking weak.
And it won't have gone unnoticed with many of you that there is a certain irony that the most unpopular prime minister of modern times, Ms Truss, is now reinventing herself as the leader of the Popular Conservatives after bombing with the vast majority of the voters in her time as leader, according to polls
Yes, quite right, how dare these upstarts disturb our door-knockers and leaflet-deliverers with all this talk of 'democracy' and 'low taxes' and a 'small state', it's disgusting. Bad enough we have to pretend we like these people during jumble sales and fetes, without them being encouraged to think they can actually set the party's agenda!
No. The issue with today’s launch was the complete absence of new ideas. Recycled woke bashing, which is in itself recycled “political correctness gone mad” and the tired “silent majority/shy Tory” tripe resurrected after 30 years. It was transparently an attempt to curry favour for opposition leadership roles, preaching to the converted, rather than a serious attempt to win a general election.
Conservatism needs a credo that aims to supplant and replace the woke/pc ideology, rather than just complain about the negative externalities of those things. If your opponents are changing things, and you're complaining about it, you're losing. But that does not in any way invalidate the arguments against woke/pc, which are as valid now as they ever were.
People think that the 'woke' are still in the ascendency, Britain has a 'progressive majority' and that the tories need to go to the 'centre' by embracing Starmerism. It is all essentially wishful thinking and goes against the experience of other comparable countries in Europe.
I have no idea who 'the woke' are. I suspect the concept of a group of 'woke' people being in the ascendancy is a figment of right-wingers' fevered imaginations.
Maybe look in the mirror.
This is amusing because actually my point was that the 'woke' are not in the ascendency, it is a delusion.
Going 'woke' on the part of the tories as part of 'modernisation' would be catastrophic and existential, they would probably lose large swathes of voters to Reform, as they already are doing.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
I think Andy is suggesting, probably correctly, that these were conversions of convenience.
My church has supported asylum seekers for years, mostly with practical issues like clothes, translators, legal advice etc. I don't think we have made a single convert, but that isn't why we do our asylum work.
Oh so you are part of the shadowy forces undermining the govt immigration policy.
TSE you are a bit late to the party, I mentioned this issue as a key motivation tool for the Democrats a number of weeks ago...or at least I think I did....
It does, however, illustrate a point about what is happening the US. The Democrats have been watching Trump kind of hoping someone else, i.e. the courts, will do the job for them. They are only now waking up to the fact that they need to a run an actual campaign.
Shortly after Liz Truss and co took to the stage to launch the new Popular Conservatism - or "PopCon" - movement, pitching itself as an anti-woke, anti-green, anti-elite, anti-immigration voice of the voter, my phone buzzed with a message from a very disgruntled MP. "What everyone is privately thinking is that the rules must change on selection of the party leader," said the former minister. "But no-one will initiate, so our party drifts to the right.
"The selection of leader must return to parliamentarians, so that these subtribes won't schmooze our base with their populist message." In the hall in Westminster, where Ms Truss led the PopCon rally, other MPs such as Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg professed their loyalty to the ex-PM, insisting this was about the battle for ideas and taking power back from elites - in this case Davos man or Supreme Court judges - and giving it back to the people.
But for many of his colleagues, these groups are only serving to push away some of their most centrist voters, making the party look more divided and leaving Rishi Sunak looking weak.
And it won't have gone unnoticed with many of you that there is a certain irony that the most unpopular prime minister of modern times, Ms Truss, is now reinventing herself as the leader of the Popular Conservatives after bombing with the vast majority of the voters in her time as leader, according to polls
Yes, quite right, how dare these upstarts disturb our door-knockers and leaflet-deliverers with all this talk of 'democracy' and 'low taxes' and a 'small state', it's disgusting. Bad enough we have to pretend we like these people during jumble sales and fetes, without them being encouraged to think they can actually set the party's agenda!
No. The issue with today’s launch was the complete absence of new ideas. Recycled woke bashing, which is in itself recycled “political correctness gone mad” and the tired “silent majority/shy Tory” tripe resurrected after 30 years. It was transparently an attempt to curry favour for opposition leadership roles, preaching to the converted, rather than a serious attempt to win a general election.
Conservatism needs a credo that aims to supplant and replace the woke/pc ideology, rather than just complain about the negative externalities of those things. If your opponents are changing things, and you're complaining about it, you're losing. But that does not in any way invalidate the arguments against woke/pc, which are as valid now as they ever were.
People think that the 'woke' are still in the ascendency, Britain has a 'progressive majority' and that the tories need to go to the 'centre' by embracing Starmerism. It is all essentially wishful thinking and goes against the experience of other comparable countries in Europe.
I have no idea who 'the woke' are. I suspect the concept of a group of 'woke' people being in the ascendancy is a figment of right-wingers' fevered imaginations.
Maybe look in the mirror.
This is amusing because actually my point was that the 'woke' are not in the ascendency, it is a delusion.
Going 'woke' on the part of the tories as part of 'modernisation' would be catastrophic and existential, they would probably lose large swathes of voters to Reform, as they already are doing.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
I think Andy is suggesting, probably correctly, that these were conversions of convenience.
My church has supported asylum seekers for years, mostly with practical issues like clothes, translators, legal advice etc. I don't think we have made a single convert, but that isn't why we do our asylum work.
Oh so you are part of the shadowy forces undermining the govt immigration policy.
Hmm I often disagree with foxy but you are making me think you are a jeremy hunt and live under a bridge
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
Username checks out
I don't believe I have ever claimed to be a christian, but thats not the point. We shouldn't care about peoples faith as long as they are willing to adjust their attitudes to values such as female equality, tolerance of those that are homosexuals and just generally thinking all people are equal
Careful, you'll have the Wokefinder General after you.
Seriously though, I think you make a fair point. Could the Right to Reside be made conditional on signing up to a set of principles, including the equality laws? Seems like a good idea to me.
I would agree with that certainly. I lived in slough for 30 odd years and some of what I saw in the immigrant community was deeply disturbing. Not most of them but there were certainly those that brought attitudes from the old country that I would deem not worthy of people living in this country and sadly there is also a similar number of native born britons that have been here generations with the same sort of attitudes
Quality of immigrants is higher in some parts of the country than others. Many of the indian immigrants who reside in west london can be wuite impressive, pakistani muslims in rochdale less so.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
Username checks out
I don't believe I have ever claimed to be a christian, but thats not the point. We shouldn't care about peoples faith as long as they are willing to adjust their attitudes to values such as female equality, tolerance of those that are homosexuals and just generally thinking all people are equal
Careful, you'll have the Wokefinder General after you.
Seriously though, I think you make a fair point. Could the Right to Reside be made conditional on signing up to a set of principles, including the equality laws? Seems like a good idea to me.
In principle I would be happy with that.
There is the problem that attitudes to these things change over time. In England in the mid Sixties believing that Homosexuality should be a criminal offence, and that rape did not exist as a crime in marriage were mainstream opinions here.
TSE you are a bit late to the party, I mentioned this issue as a key motivation tool for the Democrats a number of weeks ago...or at least I think I did....
It does, however, illustrate a point about what is happening the US. The Democrats have been watching Trump kind of hoping someone else, i.e. the courts, will do the job for them. They are only now waking up to the fact that they need to a run an actual campaign.
Really ?
I think it's rather that Trump's court battles are what's getting reported.
I'm going to file a lawsuit against Truss for her fronting the launch of a popular conservatism group. My irony meter is broken beyond repair.
Upcoming splinter groups to be announced soon include: - 'Exciting' social democrats by Keir Starmer - 'Honest' Etonians by Boris Johnson - 'Naughty' one nation conservatives by Theresa May - 'Tall' Tories by Rishi.....
I'm going to file a lawsuit against Truss for her fronting the launch of a popular conservatism group. My irony meter is broken beyond repair.
Upcoming splinter groups to be announced soon include: - 'Exciting' social democrats by Keir Starmer - 'Honest' Etonians by Boris Johnson - 'Naughty' one nation conservatives by Theresa May - 'Tall' Tories by Rishi.....
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
Username checks out
I don't believe I have ever claimed to be a christian, but thats not the point. We shouldn't care about peoples faith as long as they are willing to adjust their attitudes to values such as female equality, tolerance of those that are homosexuals and just generally thinking all people are equal
Careful, you'll have the Wokefinder General after you.
Seriously though, I think you make a fair point. Could the Right to Reside be made conditional on signing up to a set of principles, including the equality laws? Seems like a good idea to me.
In principle I would be happy with that.
There is the problem that attitudes to these things change over time. In England in the mid Sixties believing that Homosexuality should be a criminal offence, and that rape did not exist as a crime in marriage were mainstream opinions here.
Those beliefs on homosexuality are still common amongst much of our immigrant population.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
I think Andy is suggesting, probably correctly, that these were conversions of convenience.
My church has supported asylum seekers for years, mostly with practical issues like clothes, translators, legal advice etc. I don't think we have made a single convert, but that isn't why we do our asylum work.
Oh so you are part of the shadowy forces undermining the govt immigration policy.
No, we are careful to work within the law. I am a Trustee so aware of our legal responsibilities.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole EXC: November election is off — Sunak eyeing October amid fears over massive global insecurity after US elections.
Sounds like bollocks to me. 'Massive global insecurity' would surely work in Sunak's favour?
Or... "Rishi has no idea what to do. October? November? Miveoweberly?"
Actually fair point. November is clearly the best choice for Sunak - so he's not going to choose November.
October is clearly a better choice if you want a good election result than November.
Why would you go a week after the clocks go back, rather than a week before the clocks go back?
People are more miserable after the clocks change. Its suddenly much darker, greyer, people feel the seasonal change - what kind of lunatic incumbent would choose to voluntarily go to the polls, while behind, after the clock change?
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
Username checks out
I don't believe I have ever claimed to be a christian, but thats not the point. We shouldn't care about peoples faith as long as they are willing to adjust their attitudes to values such as female equality, tolerance of those that are homosexuals and just generally thinking all people are equal
Careful, you'll have the Wokefinder General after you.
Seriously though, I think you make a fair point. Could the Right to Reside be made conditional on signing up to a set of principles, including the equality laws? Seems like a good idea to me.
I would agree with that certainly. I lived in slough for 30 odd years and some of what I saw in the immigrant community was deeply disturbing. Not most of them but there were certainly those that brought attitudes from the old country that I would deem not worthy of people living in this country and sadly there is also a similar number of native born britons that have been here generations with the same sort of attitudes
Quality of immigrants is higher in some parts of the country than others. Many of the indian immigrants who reside in west london can be wuite impressive, pakistani muslims in rochdale less so.
Oh dear. Based on extensive research, I assume? I think I can see where this is heading.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole EXC: November election is off — Sunak eyeing October amid fears over massive global insecurity after US elections.
Sounds like bollocks to me. 'Massive global insecurity' would surely work in Sunak's favour?
Or... "Rishi has no idea what to do. October? November? Miveoweberly?"
Actually fair point. November is clearly the best choice for Sunak - so he's not going to choose November.
October is clearly a better choice if you want a good election result than November.
Why would you go a week after the clocks go back, rather than a week before the clocks go back?
People are more miserable after the clocks change. Its suddenly much darker, greyer, people feel the seasonal change - what kind of lunatic incumbent would choose to voluntarily go to the polls, while behind, after the clock change?
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
Username checks out
I don't believe I have ever claimed to be a christian, but thats not the point. We shouldn't care about peoples faith as long as they are willing to adjust their attitudes to values such as female equality, tolerance of those that are homosexuals and just generally thinking all people are equal
Careful, you'll have the Wokefinder General after you.
Seriously though, I think you make a fair point. Could the Right to Reside be made conditional on signing up to a set of principles, including the equality laws? Seems like a good idea to me.
I would agree with that certainly. I lived in slough for 30 odd years and some of what I saw in the immigrant community was deeply disturbing. Not most of them but there were certainly those that brought attitudes from the old country that I would deem not worthy of people living in this country and sadly there is also a similar number of native born britons that have been here generations with the same sort of attitudes
Quality of immigrants is higher in some parts of the country than others. Many of the indian immigrants who reside in west london can be wuite impressive, pakistani muslims in rochdale less so.
Oh dear. Based on extensive research, I assume? I think I can see where this is heading.
Observation and experience my dear Observation and experience.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
I think Andy is suggesting, probably correctly, that these were conversions of convenience.
I would hope that converting to christianity gives you no extra brownie points when seeking asylum because that is equal bollocks
It gives you extra points if your country of origin persecutes Christians. It's much like pretending to be gay but with less Kylie and more Shine Jesus Shine.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
Username checks out
I don't believe I have ever claimed to be a christian, but thats not the point. We shouldn't care about peoples faith as long as they are willing to adjust their attitudes to values such as female equality, tolerance of those that are homosexuals and just generally thinking all people are equal
Careful, you'll have the Wokefinder General after you.
Seriously though, I think you make a fair point. Could the Right to Reside be made conditional on signing up to a set of principles, including the equality laws? Seems like a good idea to me.
In principle I would be happy with that.
There is the problem that attitudes to these things change over time. In England in the mid Sixties believing that Homosexuality should be a criminal offence, and that rape did not exist as a crime in marriage were mainstream opinions here.
Those beliefs on homosexuality are still common amongst much of our immigrant population.
Indeed so, though far from universally held.
Part of being a liberal society is that people can take illiberal views. The key issue is that they obey the law, so do not break the laws on equalities etc.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
Username checks out
I don't believe I have ever claimed to be a christian, but thats not the point. We shouldn't care about peoples faith as long as they are willing to adjust their attitudes to values such as female equality, tolerance of those that are homosexuals and just generally thinking all people are equal
Careful, you'll have the Wokefinder General after you.
Seriously though, I think you make a fair point. Could the Right to Reside be made conditional on signing up to a set of principles, including the equality laws? Seems like a good idea to me.
I would agree with that certainly. I lived in slough for 30 odd years and some of what I saw in the immigrant community was deeply disturbing. Not most of them but there were certainly those that brought attitudes from the old country that I would deem not worthy of people living in this country and sadly there is also a similar number of native born britons that have been here generations with the same sort of attitudes
Quality of immigrants is higher in some parts of the country than others. Many of the indian immigrants who reside in west london can be wuite impressive, pakistani muslims in rochdale less so.
Oh dear. Based on extensive research, I assume? I think I can see where this is heading.
I'm sure there's a ton of evidence.
Though I'm equally sure that many of the white people in Rochdale aren't quite impressive in their literacy either.
Not to be a grammar Nazi, but possibly including our new friend who doesn't know to capitalise proper nouns.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole EXC: November election is off — Sunak eyeing October amid fears over massive global insecurity after US elections.
Sounds like bollocks to me. 'Massive global insecurity' would surely work in Sunak's favour?
Or... "Rishi has no idea what to do. October? November? Miveoweberly?"
Actually fair point. November is clearly the best choice for Sunak - so he's not going to choose November.
October is clearly a better choice if you want a good election result than November.
Why would you go a week after the clocks go back, rather than a week before the clocks go back?
People are more miserable after the clocks change. Its suddenly much darker, greyer, people feel the seasonal change - what kind of lunatic incumbent would choose to voluntarily go to the polls, while behind, after the clock change?
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
I think Andy is suggesting, probably correctly, that these were conversions of convenience.
My church has supported asylum seekers for years, mostly with practical issues like clothes, translators, legal advice etc. I don't think we have made a single convert, but that isn't why we do our asylum work.
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
"In 2016 the Rt Rev Pete Wilcox, then dean of the cathedral, said it had converted 200 asylum seekers in four years. Yet he couldn’t think of a single example where somebody who had already gained British citizenship converted from Islam to Christianity"."
Wow sorry what the hell has this to do with anything? You think people who live here should have to convert, never heard so much bollocks in my life
Username checks out
I don't believe I have ever claimed to be a christian, but thats not the point. We shouldn't care about peoples faith as long as they are willing to adjust their attitudes to values such as female equality, tolerance of those that are homosexuals and just generally thinking all people are equal
Careful, you'll have the Wokefinder General after you.
Seriously though, I think you make a fair point. Could the Right to Reside be made conditional on signing up to a set of principles, including the equality laws? Seems like a good idea to me.
In principle I would be happy with that.
There is the problem that attitudes to these things change over time. In England in the mid Sixties believing that Homosexuality should be a criminal offence, and that rape did not exist as a crime in marriage were mainstream opinions here.
Those beliefs on homosexuality are still common amongst much of our immigrant population.
Indeed so, though far from universally held.
Part of being a liberal society is that people can take illiberal views. The key issue is that they obey the law, so do not break the laws on equalities etc.
Yes but those people will still likely discriminate against gays in things like employment.
Comments
Listen, I am tiring of speaking to the PB brick wall about this now, so maybe I’ll stop. But when you have someone who has defied the odds to win the Mayoralty, the referendum, then a landslide I think it is foolish to get rid, especially when there’s no real candidate to take over. The people who voted for him, when polled, still say they prefer him to any other Tory, he wipes the floor with his rival in the charisma stakes and would obviously win over more of the public in a campaign. If people refuse, or don’t want, to believe it, that’s their choice, let’s leave it there
Of course they’re entitled. Just like all those members who think it’s democratic for them regularly to choose new PMs without a general election.
If the MPs select their leader at least the PM would be selected by those elected by the people. As it is PM Truss was chosen by 150,000 unelected and unrepresentative people.
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1754973208866910230
He could have fought and won in Uxbridge but was too frit.
My theory is that societies with less sophisticated governance tolerated the occasional imbecile as monarch, which was a disaster each time it happened, because in the round it was better than constant succession wars. In principle we're better than that now.
Is Boris or The Truss the better PM?
I know the answer.
Do you?
https://twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/1754993410535026753
Tucker demonstrates, yet again, that he’s a propagandist not a journalist.
This is the party which claims to care most about the rule of law.
Lawyers represent their clients and the court decides, is my - probably ridiculous - understanding.
IPSOS MORI poll on ‘who has the most personality’ and Boris beat Sir Keir by at least 30 points, whereas Sunak & Sir Keir are neck and neck
Boris or Truss?
Who is the GOAT?
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1754945619871838374
Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
EXC: November election is off — Sunak eyeing October amid fears over massive global insecurity after US elections.
It’s really not complicated.
Who is the greater PM - Boris or The Truss?
Telling, very telling.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/06/06/the-case-for-making-personality-ratings-a-good-electoral-indicator/
Ultimately, there was only so many times ministers could do media rounds in which they had to sacrifice their credibility for a PM they know is happy to throw them under the bus and make them look ridiculous before they snapped.
Now bringing him back despite knowing what he is would be a very sorry admission about the state of the Tory Party and Tory MPs - that they are so rubbish their best chance is someone they abandoned for being a huckster - that they won't do it.
Which is the greatest stain on my shoe? I'm not sure I've ever given it a lot of thought.
Cast your votes.
Look on the bright side.
Seriously though, I think you make a fair point. Could the Right to Reside be made conditional on signing up to a set of principles, including the equality laws? Seems like a good idea to me.
Going 'woke' on the part of the tories as part of 'modernisation' would be catastrophic and existential, they would probably lose large swathes of voters to Reform, as they already are doing.
It does, however, illustrate a point about what is happening the US. The Democrats have been watching Trump kind of hoping someone else, i.e. the courts, will do the job for them. They are only now waking up to the fact that they need to a run an actual campaign.
There is the problem that attitudes to these things change over time. In England in the mid Sixties believing that Homosexuality should be a criminal offence, and that rape did not exist as a crime in marriage were mainstream opinions here.
I think it's rather that Trump's court battles are what's getting reported.
- 'Exciting' social democrats by Keir Starmer
- 'Honest' Etonians by Boris Johnson
- 'Naughty' one nation conservatives by Theresa May
- 'Tall' Tories by Rishi.....
Why would you go a week after the clocks go back, rather than a week before the clocks go back?
People are more miserable after the clocks change. Its suddenly much darker, greyer, people feel the seasonal change - what kind of lunatic incumbent would choose to voluntarily go to the polls, while behind, after the clock change?
So Sunak might choose it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/feb/06/rishi-sunak-accused-of-personally-holding-up-deal-to-end-doctors-strikes
No idea how true that is, but it does seem to chime with his deft political touch.
I think I can see where this is heading.
Observation and experience.
Part of being a liberal society is that people can take illiberal views. The key issue is that they obey the law, so do not break the laws on equalities etc.
Though I'm equally sure that many of the white people in Rochdale aren't quite impressive in their literacy either.
Not to be a grammar Nazi, but possibly including our new friend who doesn't know to capitalise proper nouns.
Marjorie Taylor Greene and Mike Johnson's resolution to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas has FAILED, 214-216
In a number of countries, apostasy from Islam carries the death penalty. In more, persecution and murderous violence.
So if you convert, you have a cast iron reason not to be sent back.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1754999578619707658
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1755004378325602778