There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
Boris wasn't forced out. He resigned.
You'll see this narrative build now until and after the GE, that actually St Johnson would have won a landslide.
Back on Earth, he literally ran away. Like the coward he is.
If Trump returns to the White House next January after losing power in 2020, I expect Boris will try and do the same and after a Sunak and Hunt defeat try and take over the Conservatives again in opposition
Firstly, the system in the US means you can easily run for the top job from outside Congress. The Conservative candidate for PM is their leader in the House of Commons, so he'd need to cross that hurdle (and be allowed to by those with an interest in preventing it, as well as an MP willing to step aside and the electorate in their constituency).
Secondly, Johnson isn't Trump. I mean that in a broadly complimentary way to Johnson - he's an occasionally amusing but rather flawed individual. He's not polarised the public to the extend half of them think he's the Messiah and the other half the Antichrist. I'm sure he has plenty of fans in the Conservative membership. But, to most of the public now, he's just a bloke who was PM at one time.
If Sunak loses he also loses control of CCHQ and therefore Boris would find getting on the candidates list much easier again and lots of safe seats would jump at the chance of him as MP.
Boris isn't Trump but post Brexit he still polarises opinion in the UK strongly
If Sunak loses, someone else gets control of CCHQ. Why is that person be interested in seeing a key rival back in Parliament? And will the public have it anyway? Not impossible, but a significant hurdle.
On polarising opinion, he does so much less effectively POST Brexit that he did PRE Brexit. Then, people voted for him to get Brexit done. Now, it isn't clear what the point of polarisation is. He's a bloke who was PM, wasn't a very good one, and now isn't. You are - no doubt from your particular position in the Conservative Party - just seeing this from a totally different perspective than the vast majority of the public. Johnson is ancient history.
For starters as they would be more likely to be from the right of the party and their supporters will push hard to get Boris back as an MP
I dunno, they remind me of right-wing Weimar politicians bigging up the Kaiser after the First World War. Various would-be chancellors talked up their monarchist credentials but, when it actually came to it, they weren't in any particular rush to have him back.
Of course Boris is plotting a comeback. His hope is to see some stooge replace Sunak, someone who will supply him with a safe seat or perhaps a seat in the Lords.
From there he’ll hope to be Tory leader by 2028.
Boris planning a comeback is about as likely as Tony Blair planning a comeback.
He's history.
but what does BJ think in his fevered imagination...?
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
The revenue from fuel duty and VED does not exceed that spent maintaining the road network.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
The revenue from fuel duty and VED does not exceed that spent maintaining the road network.
Bullshit.
I'm actually a massive fan of car congestion. It's why average speeds are so slow on the roads, contributing to a reduction in casualties. A 20mph limit is redundant in most cities during rush hour as the average speed is significantly slower anyway.
My concern is that measures to reduce traffic in cities will see a large increase in high velocity collisions with pedestrians.
While most of the time I drive in urban areas I have my cruise control set to the speed limit, whether that be 30, 40 or 50 miles per hour. Too many places are 30 that really should be more, or 50 when they should really be 70.
Cruise control can't be set in my vehicle less than 25 mph, but that's rarely a problem unless I'm at or approaching red lights.
Not everyone only experiences driving in a city, at rush hour.
Still at least you didn't attempt to defend your bullshit claim and accepted it was bullshit and tried to move on to a stereotypical out-of-touch city experience.
I'm from rural Scotland. You're from the densely populated NW England.
We need a programme of national investment in both.
We spend £11 billion a year on roads, IIRC
VED generates £7 billion. And Fuel Duty £25 billion.
Total cost is around £70 billion if you take into account road collision casualties, air pollution, and the economic time value of congestion. That's why subsidies for rail make sense.
There’s a poll out in the Telegraph showing Tories would be better off reinstating Boris, not much better off from what I can see, maybe 19pts behind rather than the Labour VI lead in the same poll of 22
Of course, had Boris not been forced out, there would have been no Truss budget and the Tories probably wouldn’t have fallen off a cliff as they did when she and KK did their thing
Boris wasn't forced out. He resigned.
You'll see this narrative build now until and after the GE, that actually St Johnson would have won a landslide.
Back on Earth, he literally ran away. Like the coward he is.
If Trump returns to the White House next January after losing power in 2020, I expect Boris will try and do the same and after a Sunak and Hunt defeat try and take over the Conservatives again in opposition
Firstly, the system in the US means you can easily run for the top job from outside Congress. The Conservative candidate for PM is their leader in the House of Commons, so he'd need to cross that hurdle (and be allowed to by those with an interest in preventing it, as well as an MP willing to step aside and the electorate in their constituency).
Secondly, Johnson isn't Trump. I mean that in a broadly complimentary way to Johnson - he's an occasionally amusing but rather flawed individual. He's not polarised the public to the extend half of them think he's the Messiah and the other half the Antichrist. I'm sure he has plenty of fans in the Conservative membership. But, to most of the public now, he's just a bloke who was PM at one time.
If Sunak loses he also loses control of CCHQ and therefore Boris would find getting on the candidates list much easier again and lots of safe seats would jump at the chance of him as MP.
Boris isn't Trump but post Brexit he still polarises opinion in the UK strongly
If Sunak loses, someone else gets control of CCHQ. Why is that person be interested in seeing a key rival back in Parliament? And will the public have it anyway? Not impossible, but a significant hurdle.
On polarising opinion, he does so much less effectively POST Brexit that he did PRE Brexit. Then, people voted for him to get Brexit done. Now, it isn't clear what the point of polarisation is. He's a bloke who was PM, wasn't a very good one, and now isn't. You are - no doubt from your particular position in the Conservative Party - just seeing this from a totally different perspective than the vast majority of the public. Johnson is ancient history.
For starters as they would be more likely to be from the right of the party and their supporters will push hard to get Boris back as an MP
He's single-handedly (well with some help from Truss) turned your once proud party into a comedy act. He should not be the future of your party, although that is none of my business, and I care not a jot.
I do care about my country, and we don't want him back. He is an embarrassment.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
The revenue from fuel duty and VED does not exceed that spent maintaining the road network.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
The revenue from fuel duty and VED does not exceed that spent maintaining the road network.
Bullshit.
I'm actually a massive fan of car congestion. It's why average speeds are so slow on the roads, contributing to a reduction in casualties. A 20mph limit is redundant in most cities during rush hour as the average speed is significantly slower anyway.
My concern is that measures to reduce traffic in cities will see a large increase in high velocity collisions with pedestrians.
While most of the time I drive in urban areas I have my cruise control set to the speed limit, whether that be 30, 40 or 50 miles per hour. Too many places are 30 that really should be more, or 50 when they should really be 70.
Cruise control can't be set in my vehicle less than 25 mph, but that's rarely a problem unless I'm at or approaching red lights.
Not everyone only experiences driving in a city, at rush hour.
Still at least you didn't attempt to defend your bullshit claim and accepted it was bullshit and tried to move on to a stereotypical out-of-touch city experience.
I'm from rural Scotland. You're from the densely populated NW England.
We need a programme of national investment in both.
We spend £11 billion a year on roads, IIRC
VED generates £7 billion. And Fuel Duty £25 billion.
Total cost is around £70 billion if you take into account road collision casualties, air pollution, and the economic time value of congestion. That's why subsidies for rail make sense.
And yet I drive at a speed where my cruise control works and you're obsessed with inner cities.
Your total cost figure is bull too. Road collision is fair enough but miniscule, air pollution is nonsense as we fade out petrol.
Congestion is not an externality paid by anyone not using roads and rail congestion is even worse, hence the constant bitching and moaning by rail users.
That's why rail subsidies are nonsense only claimed by greedy people who want others to subsidise their hobby horse.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
The revenue from fuel duty and VED does not exceed that spent maintaining the road network.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
The revenue from fuel duty and VED does not exceed that spent maintaining the road network.
Bullshit.
I'm actually a massive fan of car congestion. It's why average speeds are so slow on the roads, contributing to a reduction in casualties. A 20mph limit is redundant in most cities during rush hour as the average speed is significantly slower anyway.
My concern is that measures to reduce traffic in cities will see a large increase in high velocity collisions with pedestrians.
While most of the time I drive in urban areas I have my cruise control set to the speed limit, whether that be 30, 40 or 50 miles per hour. Too many places are 30 that really should be more, or 50 when they should really be 70.
Cruise control can't be set in my vehicle less than 25 mph, but that's rarely a problem unless I'm at or approaching red lights.
Not everyone only experiences driving in a city, at rush hour.
Still at least you didn't attempt to defend your bullshit claim and accepted it was bullshit and tried to move on to a stereotypical out-of-touch city experience.
I'm from rural Scotland. You're from the densely populated NW England.
We need a programme of national investment in both.
We spend £11 billion a year on roads, IIRC
VED generates £7 billion. And Fuel Duty £25 billion.
Total cost is around £70 billion if you take into account road collision casualties, air pollution, and the economic time value of congestion. That's why subsidies for rail make sense.
And yet I drive at a speed where my cruise control works and you're obsessed with inner cities.
Your total cost figure is bull too. Road collision is fair enough but miniscule, air pollution is nonsense as we fade out petrol.
Congestion is not an externality paid by anyone not using roads and rail congestion is even worse, hence the constant bitching and moaning by rail users.
That's why rail subsidies are nonsense only claimed by greedy people who want others to subsidise their hobby horse.
Road collisions cost about £30 billion in 2012. Probably a bit less than that now because there are fewer collusions and slight casualties, but then you have inflation, serious injuries etc
But anyway, let's get rid of rail subsidy, chuck more cars on the road and damage economic output. It's weird attitudes like this that explains why the UK economy has faltered over the last 10 years.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
The revenue from fuel duty and VED does not exceed that spent maintaining the road network.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
The revenue from fuel duty and VED does not exceed that spent maintaining the road network.
Bullshit.
I'm actually a massive fan of car congestion. It's why average speeds are so slow on the roads, contributing to a reduction in casualties. A 20mph limit is redundant in most cities during rush hour as the average speed is significantly slower anyway.
My concern is that measures to reduce traffic in cities will see a large increase in high velocity collisions with pedestrians.
While most of the time I drive in urban areas I have my cruise control set to the speed limit, whether that be 30, 40 or 50 miles per hour. Too many places are 30 that really should be more, or 50 when they should really be 70.
Cruise control can't be set in my vehicle less than 25 mph, but that's rarely a problem unless I'm at or approaching red lights.
Not everyone only experiences driving in a city, at rush hour.
Still at least you didn't attempt to defend your bullshit claim and accepted it was bullshit and tried to move on to a stereotypical out-of-touch city experience.
I'm from rural Scotland. You're from the densely populated NW England.
We need a programme of national investment in both.
We spend £11 billion a year on roads, IIRC
VED generates £7 billion. And Fuel Duty £25 billion.
Total cost is around £70 billion if you take into account road collision casualties, air pollution, and the economic time value of congestion. That's why subsidies for rail make sense.
And yet I drive at a speed where my cruise control works and you're obsessed with inner cities.
Your total cost figure is bull too. Road collision is fair enough but miniscule, air pollution is nonsense as we fade out petrol.
Congestion is not an externality paid by anyone not using roads and rail congestion is even worse, hence the constant bitching and moaning by rail users.
That's why rail subsidies are nonsense only claimed by greedy people who want others to subsidise their hobby horse.
Road collisions cost about £30 billion in 2012. Probably a bit less than that now because there are fewer collusions and slight casualties, but then you have inflation, serious injuries etc
But anyway, let's get rid of rail subsidy, chuck more cars on the road and damage economic output. It's weird attitudes like this that explains why the UK economy has faltered over the last 10 years.
If you're worried about road capacity, build more roads.
Can you explain why rail is so terribly inefficient it can't operate without subsidies?
There are many things Starmer is guilty of (u-turning so often you could wrap him in copper wire and generate electricity) but with the regards to the deaths of Palestinians he is entirely irrelevant.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
The revenue from fuel duty and VED does not exceed that spent maintaining the road network.
I look forward to the huge reduction in my bills. I hope you've got thousands extra lying around to spend on yours.
If the tube with 1000 other people on it will cost "thousands more" than your polluting car that seats at most 4 people then I think your maths is bogus.
Either way, I am very happy to see roads privatised and all government spending on them to end. Most inefficient form of travel there is, nutty we subsidise it.
Well the Tube with 1000 other people on it can't operate without subsidies according to @Eabhal - why that is, I leave to you to decipher.
My vehicle with typically at most 3 other people is paid for in full by me with most of my operating costs being tax, not the cost of operating it.
You don't subsidise roads, quite the opposite.
The revenue from fuel duty and VED does not exceed that spent maintaining the road network.
Bullshit.
I'm actually a massive fan of car congestion. It's why average speeds are so slow on the roads, contributing to a reduction in casualties. A 20mph limit is redundant in most cities during rush hour as the average speed is significantly slower anyway.
My concern is that measures to reduce traffic in cities will see a large increase in high velocity collisions with pedestrians.
While most of the time I drive in urban areas I have my cruise control set to the speed limit, whether that be 30, 40 or 50 miles per hour. Too many places are 30 that really should be more, or 50 when they should really be 70.
Cruise control can't be set in my vehicle less than 25 mph, but that's rarely a problem unless I'm at or approaching red lights.
Not everyone only experiences driving in a city, at rush hour.
Still at least you didn't attempt to defend your bullshit claim and accepted it was bullshit and tried to move on to a stereotypical out-of-touch city experience.
I'm from rural Scotland. You're from the densely populated NW England.
We need a programme of national investment in both.
We spend £11 billion a year on roads, IIRC
VED generates £7 billion. And Fuel Duty £25 billion.
Total cost is around £70 billion if you take into account road collision casualties, air pollution, and the economic time value of congestion. That's why subsidies for rail make sense.
And yet I drive at a speed where my cruise control works and you're obsessed with inner cities.
Your total cost figure is bull too. Road collision is fair enough but miniscule, air pollution is nonsense as we fade out petrol.
Congestion is not an externality paid by anyone not using roads and rail congestion is even worse, hence the constant bitching and moaning by rail users.
That's why rail subsidies are nonsense only claimed by greedy people who want others to subsidise their hobby horse.
Road collisions cost about £30 billion in 2012. Probably a bit less than that now because there are fewer collusions and slight casualties, but then you have inflation, serious injuries etc
But anyway, let's get rid of rail subsidy, chuck more cars on the road and damage economic output. It's weird attitudes like this that explains why the UK economy has faltered over the last 10 years.
If you're worried about road capacity, build more roads.
Can you explain why rail is so terribly inefficient it can't operate without subsidies?
As you've discovered, it's not as terribly inefficient as motoring.
There are many things Starmer is guilty of (u-turning so often you could wrap him in copper wire and generate electricity) but with the regards to the deaths of Palestinians he is entirely irrelevant.
Oh indeed it’s nothing to do with him, but what he does need to be careful about is the brewing dissent within his own party, and perhaps a sense among the wider electorate that the anti-Semitism scandals that characterised the leadership of his predecessor, haven’t really gone away.
Comments
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/nottingham-valdo-calocane-police-whatsapp/
I do care about my country, and we don't want him back. He is an embarrassment.
Your total cost figure is bull too. Road collision is fair enough but miniscule, air pollution is nonsense as we fade out petrol.
Congestion is not an externality paid by anyone not using roads and rail congestion is even worse, hence the constant bitching and moaning by rail users.
That's why rail subsidies are nonsense only claimed by greedy people who want others to subsidise their hobby horse.
https://youtu.be/4D2YvWuY8yk?si=rKZclMfSC5sD8SeX
But anyway, let's get rid of rail subsidy, chuck more cars on the road and damage economic output. It's weird attitudes like this that explains why the UK economy has faltered over the last 10 years.
Can you explain why rail is so terribly inefficient it can't operate without subsidies?