Categories
Bad news for backers of the second coming of Truss – politicalbetting.com
Bad news for backers of the second coming of Truss – politicalbetting.com
Which has been the worst Conservative PM since 2010?Liz Truss: 39%Boris Johnson: 21%Rishi Sunak: 10%Theresa May: 7%David Cameron: 4%Don't know: 18%https://t.co/O0cJHNwANX pic.twitter.com/bevOFL5DFe
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
…wait that sounds unfortunate.
Parliamentary business being governed by fear of the mob's reaction to Labour MP's is not a great precedent to set.
Truss was right about one thing. We need to go for growth. Her incompetent way of trying to deliver it just scuppered it and any message she has is now always undermined by her short stint in power.
The Kwasi Kwarteng interview on the Bloomberg Money Podcast is worth listening to.
Whoever gets in this country is screwed. I see little to be optimistic about. I am coming round to Leon's mindset that if you are young you should get out and go somewhere else.
It was not "expertly handled".
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/feb/22/where-tourists-seldom-tread-part-8-five-more-towns-with-hidden-treasures
The threats are apparently being made to any MP who can remotely be seen as being pro-Israel or pro-Jewish, of whatever party. Starmer's idea was to protect Labour MPs; it may well have placed MPs of other parties who voted against it in increased danger.
Yet no doubt the deep state of globalists, socialists, and establishment liberals will once again conspire to prevent her getting the job.
Labour aren't innocent in this- they also use the opposition day process to craft motions which the government can't support but it would be awkward to vote against.
But this much spluttering over a vote that is pure virtue signalling... ugh.
Meanwhile,
What no one in Westminster managed to mention, is that they weren’t the only parliament debating such matters that afternoon. Over in Jerusalem, the Israeli Knesset quietly announced it would never recognise a Palestinian state. That the “two state solution” is, as far as they’re concerned, finished.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f52c8f29-4fac-4642-a0c9-752aa7ec4c4a?shareToken=058fe1ea7897d11fb082a09a2446e9df
“I thought I was doing the right thing and the best thing, and I regret it, and I apologise for how it’s ended up,”
While I understand the behaviour of Labour, and the SNP, what was the justification for a government which commands a large majority in the House just walking out of the debate ?
The SNP had a genuine grievance over the ruling; the government didn't.
The SNP knew exactly where they were putting the wedge with the motion they had tabled.
That was literally the point of the exercise.
Yesterday was an irrelevant farce. It might have embarrassed Starmer and that seemed to be its purpose. It failed.
Yesterday was a complete and utter waste of time. The country has so many issues to deal with at the moment and parliament was wasting time on a debate about Gaza for what ? For the SNP to try to embarrass labour for party political purposes.
Utterly futile.
Those who object appear only to want to do so anonymously.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/21/congress/johnsons-sermon-to-gop-retreagt-00142436
...Johnson’s private remarks to a small group of Republican lawmakers at Miami’s Mandarin Oriental Hotel over the weekend alarmed both people, who addressed the speech on condition of anonymity. Rather than outlining a specific plan to hold and grow the majority, these people said, Johnson effectively delivered a sermon.
The Louisiana Republican showed slides to the members of his Elected Leadership Committee (ELC) team in a bid to tout the party’s prospects of hanging onto its two-seat majority in November. Johnson, a devout Christian, attempted to rally the group by discussing moral decline in America — focusing on declining church membership and the nation’s shrinking religious identity, according to both people in the room.
The speaker contended that when one doesn’t have God in their life, the government or “state” will become their guide, referring back to Bible verses, both people said. They added that the approach fell flat among some in the room...
I don't think anyone involved came out of it well.
His speakership wouldn't have been mentioned yesterday had he been a good speaker.
The fact it was tells you he's not particularly widely respected.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/04/mike-johnson-theocrat-house-speaker-christian-trump
"The new House speaker, Mike Johnson, knows how he will rule: according to his Bible. When asked on Fox News how he would make public policy, he replied: “Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview.” But it’s taking time for the full significance of that statement to sink in. Johnson is in fact a believer in scriptural originalism, the view that the Bible is the truth and the sole legitimate source for public policy."
https://cpe.org.uk/our-news/worsening-medicine-shortages-linked-to-brexit-and-more/
“Worsening medicine shortages linked to Brexit and more”
I've never been that far north and it'd be a great excuse to ride the amazingly scenic Far North Line.
Might even combine with a ferry trip to the Orkneys.
The Tories and the SNP look a bit pathetic getting so outraged with it all (the Tories especially given it was not their day). Labour look like they’ve deployed some dark arts and are now sitting back with an air of smugness like that one kid in the class who got the teacher to make a decision in their favour. And Hoyle, whatever his motivations, was clearly wrong to do what he did without further consultation and deliberation with all the parties so as to avoid everything becoming unseemly.
He's not a strong enough character to get away with rulings which are of questionable impartiality.
The SNP has a grievance over losing what was their debate thanks to his ruling - irrespective of the moral dubiousness of their position.. The government are just whingeing from the sidelines.
If this was an SNP opposition day then they are entitled to be narked that the Speaker contrived to take it away from them so that their motion was not even voted on. But hey, them's the breaks.
If only Scotland wasn't so perfect in every sense perhaps the SNP might have focused on an issue nearer to home.
Then, having seized the crown, they’ve sat on their hands and done pretty much nothing for the past 18 months.
As for what happened with the votes , it was the withdrawing of the Tory amendment which meant the SNP motion wasn’t voted on . The Tories should have won their amendment even with a few rebels so they were game playing.
*) The SNP setting a trap for Labour and the Conservatives.
*) Starmer *allegedly* trying to protect Labour MPs.
The former is absolutely standard operating procedure; it's the way these things are used.
This mess occurred because of the latter. And the issue is that it's not just Labour MPs who are being threatened. If Starmer convinced the Speaker that there were valid threats out there, then the Speaker should have got all the relevant parties in and said: "There's a chance that this vote may increase risk of violence against MPs. What can we do about it?"
And if that had not worked, he could have made a grand statement at the start of the debate about the risks of such votes.
Instead, he just caved in, in a way that potentially placed non-Labour MPs at increased risk.
How has this happened? Before Brexit everything was the fault of the EU. Now, post Brexit, Brexit is to blame for everything.
Neither was anywhere near correct.
That said, I did mention yesterday that for the senior Labour sources to approach Newsnight to essentially say he was leant on, there must be some in the Labour Party who would prefer him to not be there. They must have known that would become a story and he could lose his job over it.
I just called them petulant bystanders.
It's possible this will come back to bite a future Labour government.
He's a decent guy with good principles - but he's too weak a character to be an effective Speaker when the going gets tough (which is when it matters).
A Labour government with a large majority would prefer a weak Speaker. I wouldn't.
But the whole process is a nonsense, with opposition motions of no consequence even if passed, and since Johnson the Tories have often just ignored the debate altogether, let Labour's motion pass by abstaining, and then saying it's all irrelevant. So it's another aspect of our democracy that serves no real purpose other than posturing and show. That place desperately needs dragging into the 21st Century; indeed even getting to the 20th Century would be progress.
In essence, the SNP and Tories were playing a game and got annoyed when the Speaker took away their ball. The SNP had some right to be annoyed (it was their ball) but the Tories were more like the cowards in the playground shouting 'fight fight' and then sulking when one doesn't break out.
Trouble is the Caledonian sells out well in advance, and I'm not sure my wife would welcome me abandoning her with two young kids all weekend.
(Note: Starmer handed him the shovel, and is now whistling as he walks away from the hole.)
Worth it!
For some reason the SNP don’t want Hamas to be mentioned. The government want a humanitarian pause, but that’s not good enough for Labour because the war can start again. Well yes, but a ceasefire can be broken too…
That at least would have had some merit . Instead parties have tried to score political points . The SNP motion was controversial because of certain language and the Tories amendment didn’t go far enough . Both were clearly designed to cause a problem for Labour .
The speaker was wrong to allow the Labour amendment but I do think it was done with the best of intentions to allow all MPs a vote .
I'm such a train nerd. I'd love to do the full Caledonian sleeper.
Expensive though.
Do it, cheap off season and if you book in advance.
I do wonder if the speaker missed a trick and didn’t give the SNP a chance to change their wording but beyond that I can see why he ignored precedent and allowed Labour compromise wording to be voted on
What annoys me though is that this is student level politics on a subject that Parliament has no actual say
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
However he leads the next-youngest candidate, Donald Trump, 49-45. And if they give a working-age woman the GOP nomination instead of Trump she gets a grand total of 27%, while another 27% want to vote for either RFK Jr, who is 70, or Jill Stein, who is 73.
Stay in John o groats which is such a dump you can get cheap accommodation
Don’t stay in wick
The Caledonian sleeper is of course wondrous. The full Euston to fort William service is the one you want. Going to sleep with scotch in the buffet car around Watford - waking up in glencoe. Glorious. But yes, pricey
Since then it’s all been a bit dull until last night .