Categories
Rishi Sunak is the new Boris Johnson and that’s not a good thing – politicalbetting.com
Rishi Sunak is the new Boris Johnson and that’s not a good thing – politicalbetting.com
EXC via ??@alexwickham? & me In recent days, Cabinet ministers have held private discussions exploring the possibility the Conservatives might be forced to replace Rishi Sunak before a UK election due later this year https://t.co/WYRI2ETflq
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
But no. Women can be seen. But not heard.
They are, of course, still defending him in asserting that his "remorse is genuine and should be accepted", so they don't have to return his cash.
That rather complicates any annoyance they might feel over the matter.
Or perhaps you hanker for a quick enoblement of Boris Johnson...
Cronyism and corruption at the heart of Government.
1) He knows the Tories will get gubbed at the election if he is leader and he wants his record intact.
2) He doesn't want to do five years as LOTO.
3) He likes his earnings since leaving office.
We might end up with Dan fucking Hannan
Unlike Sunk.
But I'm going out for an hour this morning trying the new E-folding bike, so life has some positives.
That said, Labour missed a trick, back in 2009 when the story broke about Gordon Brown's team trying to smear Tories including Dave and Nadine Dorries, it was agreed by Dave and the party, no Tory MP would stand to ask questions at PMQs until Nadine Dorries was called worked.
Let me see what I can pull together.
Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns tells @BBCr4today Rishi Sunak must be ousted as leader before the election to win back disaffected Conservative voters
Cameron would exacerbate the crushing of the tories. Any attempt to dissociate from the last 14 years will be lost and the whole ghastly car crash since Brexit will be laid bare before the British people. This is even without the stench of his Greenshill corruption getting full light of day.
Cameron = Conservative catastrophe
There’s actually only one person who could shore up the building and save it from total collapse. And he’s no longer in Parliament.
I think what happened to her is more a symptom than a fundamental reason - which is that if you're outside the two party FPTP monopoly, your voice doesn't get heard.
After all, she is quoted at length in the lead stories in many news publications. It's in Parliament only that she's forced to stay silent.
Gove gives the example of Shakeel Begg, which was settled in court, who will no longer get access to government cash
He denies that proroguing parliament would be undermining democracy and thus fall under that definition
@LBC
It’s bonkers but true: she would.
It’s the Boris effect. Particularly with certain ladies. Not me, I hasten to add. I saw through that sleazy schmuck a long time ago.
Boris would just about pull in some red wall seats and probably get the tories into the 30’s percentage.
"Though I may have disagreed with many of his political positions, I have absolutely no doubt they were derived from a deeply held belief in the goodness of people and a desire to help make their lives better. A classic case of agreeing on the aims but disagreeing on the methods. He was one of the last remaining true conviction politicians and someone who, in the end, I admired immensely."
Today I have to ask the same question as I did a decade ago. In comparison to such people of conviction and ability, how did we end up with such minnows running our world today?
This is to do with the Damian McBride smears / attempted manipulations, presumably, and perhaps the incident where Dorries was paid compensation?
Very sadly for the Party.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68543919
On the upside, it would be nice to have a government where the only cant is called Brian (RIP).
(Not for students, I ‘grant' you)
Because if we're going to stick to conventions, there are a lot of other old-fashioned conventions that women might like men to comply with.
1. After every station: ‘uniformed and non-uniformed revenue protection officers patrol this train and if you are found to be without a valid ticket you may face a £100 fine and prosecution.’ EVERY SINGLE BLOODY STATION.
2. ‘Any violent or abusive behaviour towards our staff will be reported to British Transport Police.’
Well, fine, if you do cross a line but this comes across as their own self-protection to avoid ANY kind of criticism
SWR is shit. The trains are getting run down. The loos are appalling. There are NO power outlets anywhere in standard class. And ever since covid they have withdrawn all catering services: so for instance you can go 3.5 hours down to the south-west with not a drop to drink.
And all the while their fares are eye-wateringly expensive.
Rant over.
I entirely agree he ought to have called her to speak, but I'm not entirely convinced by your reasoning here.
"We" don't come into it. This is about Parliament and how it's run.
I suppose with hindsight it was the afterglow of the best of the Blair years. Cameron consciously and avowedly aped Tony Blair, and had the legacy of the wonderful 2012 London Olympics which was the final swan-song for Cool Britannia.
It’s been all downhill since.
She also commented that when she goes door knocking about a third are Labour, a third Tory and the rest undecided former Tory voters. Well in 2019 Labour got 35% of the vote so she’s either very selectively knocking or Morley & Outwood is a unique constituency where Labour are going backwards,
This part of Gove's bill could be fun. Finally, a right to roam in England?
Some other people on my timelines have suggested this is a way to attack school streets, LTNs etc
role.
Which is because since last year, she's sat as an independent MP.
I agree entirely with your reasons for why she should have been.
A lot of the things politicians used to do- coming up with policies and persuading others of their rightness- are done by other people now. Think tanks, ad agencies, those types.
So the politicians don't get good at them, because they have people to do those sorts of things. Don't know what we do about this.
(And sorry folks, but there's an AI issue here as well. If we use machines to do the routine 99% and reserve the difficult 1% for humans to do, how will humans get good enough at the problems to deal with the difficult cases?)
I'm not defending it it for a moment.
No adulteration of food. No pollution of water and air ...
Duff sample = Duff data.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
38m
Twice as many people know Lee Anderson compared to Richard Tice. So name recognition alone will give Reform a boost. Not as much as if Nigel Farage was properly coming out to play. But a boost non-the-less.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Whether businesses, governments, etc put the same effort into keeping their people skilled? The evidence isn't pointing to a great result...
I was flabbergasted, not at the idea that the Councillors didn't understand their own budget (I'm not naive), but rather that they would feel that it's an acceptable excuse. If they felt that the budget was so vague that they didn't realise what they had signed off, then surely it's their job to demand that detail?
Looking at yesterday's PMQs, leaving aside the LOTO's questions, questions were asked by eleven men, and eleven women (*). This includes the SNP and Lib Dem leaders though, so perhaps one or both of those should be removed (as they were called on a party basis, not at speaker's choice?). Most of the women were called nearer the end.
Looking at the previous PMQs (3), there's a very different story: 13 questions from men (leaving aside Starmer), and only three women.
Looking at the one before that (28/02/2024), it as 18 men, and 7 women.
So it appears to be rather all over the places; some PMQs more women get called than is their proportion in parliament; at others, fewer. The women do seem to get called later in proceedings, though that might just be because the major party leaders are currently male.
Methodology: randomly counted, not for academic use, etc, etc. Was unsure whether I should have included Starmer in the list or not...
(1): https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/gender-balance-politics
(2): https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-03-13/debates/0F85365D-BD56-4647-B8B5-EC356A1BD132/Engagements
(3): https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-03-06/debates/68C06922-A4AE-43B8-AC5F-F73A6A5BC7E0/Engagements
(4): https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-02-28/debates/B0D02324-11C1-4617-B00D-72FDD676BD03/Engagements
(*) If I've calculated that correctly from a quick reading...
It's another poor judgement call from speaker Hoyle.
As he was going to have to skip questions off the order paper anyway I think it would - in the circumstances - have made sense to call Abbott instead of another one. He would have been criticised for that as well as going against the long-standing convention. And we know how that went last time.
The rule - as he said last time - is archaic and needs revising. If Tory MPs are cowards and don't want to ask the shitty whip question the speaker should just call more opposition MPs.
Those who never liked him and couldn’t see what the fuss was about (in some cases through exposure to his type in other walks of life) cannot grasp how he could be remotely popular, so they refuse to believe it.
Those who really like him find it extremely difficult to imagine a world where others wouldn’t.
It’s a mutual blind spot. The key then is the rest of the country, the maybe 60% who were more prosaic in their assessment of him. Immune from the stardust but happy to appreciate his good points.
Once again Parliament is showing itself as simply not fit for purpose.
I am sceptical, but it is ipsos. Online though.
So the policies were beyond woeful (austerity probably led to Brexit), the lack of planning means we need new Gas power stations to ensure we don’t have failures in future winters and our local Governments are falling apart.
So I really don’t see the coalition being regarded as good in the future
I'm rather surprised that Labour haven't come back a little stronger on this with a comparable demonstration of "contrition". Afzhar Ali showed "contrition" and apologised. That should have drawn a line under the matter. But it didn't.
If I were Labour I'd be forcing the Conservatives to say "Ah, but Afzhar Ali was different to Frank Hester" and then make them explain why it was different, eg. "Because Afzhar Ali's comments were anti-semitic".
The obvious attack line for Labour then becomes "Are you saying that one type of hate or racism is more important than another? Are you saying the lives of the Jewish community matter more than the lives of the Black community?"
My point is that Labour should be forcing the Conservatives to say why there's a difference between Afzhar Ali and Frank Hester. And then they should be hammering them for it.
However he had to be canned, his low character had been too well exposed and as a consequence his appeal is not what it was. The 'B' brand is badly tarnished. He's history, really, but as a pure hypothetical you can try and assess how the Cons would do in the coming election if somehow he could be magicked back as PM. I think he'd be worth about 25 seats.
Some will think that important, others won’t care about the optics because the policy is what matters. It’s probably the contrast with 2016 onwards that puts the coalition modus operandi in such a good light.
1. The next person on the list from the other side of the House from the last.
2. A person of your choice from the other side of the House from the last.
Hoyle's problem, as I understand it, was that there were, randomly, a lot of non-Tories on the list of 20 this week, so he had to keep working through them for every second question. If you were, say, a LibDem in position 16 and he called Diane instead and you therefore didn't get called, you'd complain that he'd broken the rules to help an ex-colleague.
I agree that he could have allowed PMQs to run over for a few minutes with a view to calling Diane. However, I'm not sure he'd have exhausted the list of Opposition MPs waiting to speak who would automatically have been given preference, so it wouldn't (in that case - I've not checked) have solved it. It would however be open to him to grant an emergency debate on a subject of an MP's choosing, so I wonder if Diane might choose to pursue that route - say "The influence of major individual donors on British political life". All parties would have some awkward things to deal with but that wouldn't worry her. It would arguably be a good example of the value of having a few "awkward" MPs.
The decision is not, as some have suggested, in the same category as deciding which amendment to call, since that is explicitly a matter for the Speaker to decide, though he is expected to take precedent into account.
It is very easy to jump to conclusions about complicated issues.
But here we are. I blame AI...
Dear TSE , you do realise this is just one of the strong reasons to have May 2nd General Election, which you long time poo poo’d?
As we now get closer to all the reasons becoming reality, bad locals, covid report, slow cutting of interest rates, surge in boat crossings, is it only now you come awake to the dangerous, Swingback killing, impact of them?
Hoyle's problem is as much that he has very little sense about when his bending the rules might offend the House, and when it might be overlooked by everyone.
It is, after all, only MPs who can question House procedures, whatever the rules say.