£800 of tax rises whoever wins the election. And yes, that is a year, not over 4 years. I do recall writing the same on here on Thursday. This may come from a think tank but anyone looking at the deficit could surely see this.
So, on Sunak's measure this is £3,200 not £2000 and his party would have to do it too. We are spending truly absurd amounts of money compared with our income. It cannot go on.
We can afford the spending but, once again, this can only be done by soaking assets and that will piss off rich old people, who are the one constituency whom nobody dare cross. And so, on we all go, circling the plughole.
Not just them, their children too who are counting on inheriting those assets and in any case they can't cover indefinite higher and higher spending anyway
All the more reason to increase IHT and other capital taxes to pay for the transition period, some would say.
It's not as if they worked for those assets, especially with house price inflation so regionally uneven.
Yes well I know you are a hard left socialist Scot Nat of the type even closer to the Greens than Kate Forbes however I am a Tory and I believe in preserving assets built up within the family and in inherited wealth
Whereas I believe that people should be able to keep more of their own income they've worked for, not other people's incomes.
That used to be a Tory principle too. When it is once more, your party may be fit for purpose again.
I am not an historian of the early modern period, but insofar as I understand it HY's Toryism seems quite compatible with that of the Hanoverians. The vision of a strictly stratified society in which the landed gentry and ruthless rent seekers dominate an underclass of dirt poor, downtrodden peasants, who work themselves into early graves so as to keep their social betters in the style to which they are accustomed, clearly appeals to him.
Here's an interesting question, for those left leaning who support PR.
If you could have PR BUT the first election under it led to a guaranteed Tory/Reform Coalition, would you still have it or keep FPTP?
I'd want PR on a point of principle. It is then up to the voters to decide what to do with real democracy.
The only argument against PR is continuity. We’ve been FPTP for centuries so why change. On any logical understanding of democracy PR of some sort is a no brainer.
And multi member constituencies under STV preserve the local MP link while protecting you from the bad luck of a shit one. Imagine if you were a resident of Clacton or South West Norfolk after the next election and needed to talk to your MP about something like the local hospital.
Its not the only argument against pr please dont pretend it is...now dont disagree fptp is perfect but here is the difference
fptp = here is what we are going to do vote for us Pr = vote for us then we will tell you what you voted for
pr can fuck off frankly
And so can you.
Your points are nonsense. For example, nobody voting for BJ's levelling up in 2019 did so expecting that to morph into supporting Rishi cancelling HS2 by 2023.
PR allows people to vote FOR the politician they prefer. Not merely against someone. It means parliament (approximately) reflects the will of the people. It will encourage more folk to vote.
Most countries have PR. Most countries' politics are just as f*cked as ours. PR is in no way a panacea, it is merely a more accurate way for us all to express our collective, democratic will.
The idea that "most countries" vote by PR is only true because of adding a bunch of piddly tiny countries together and pretending they're all equal.
By population the overwhelming vast majority of voters in free democracies vote by FPTP. Its not even close.
Here's an interesting question, for those left leaning who support PR.
If you could have PR BUT the first election under it led to a guaranteed Tory/Reform Coalition, would you still have it or keep FPTP?
I'd want PR on a point of principle. It is then up to the voters to decide what to do with real democracy.
The only argument against PR is continuity. We’ve been FPTP for centuries so why change. On any logical understanding of democracy PR of some sort is a no brainer.
And multi member constituencies under STV preserve the local MP link while protecting you from the bad luck of a shit one. Imagine if you were a resident of Clacton or South West Norfolk after the next election and needed to talk to your MP about something like the local hospital.
Its not the only argument against pr please dont pretend it is...now dont disagree fptp is perfect but here is the difference
fptp = here is what we are going to do vote for us Pr = vote for us then we will tell you what you voted for
pr can fuck off frankly
And so can you.
Your points are nonsense. For example, nobody voting for BJ's levelling up in 2019 did so expecting that to morph into supporting Rishi cancelling HS2 by 2023.
PR allows people to vote FOR the politician they prefer. Not merely against someone. It means parliament (approximately) reflects the will of the people. It will encourage more folk to vote.
Most countries have PR. Most countries' politics are just as f*cked as ours. PR is in no way a panacea, it is merely a more accurate way for us all to express our collective, democratic will.
The idea that "most countries" vote by PR is only true because of adding a bunch of piddly tiny countries together and pretending they're all equal.
By population the overwhelming vast majority of voters in free democracies vote by FPTP. Its not even close.
That's because of India
And is India not a valid democracy?
Even excluding India I believe it would still be true.
Most European "countries" combined are less than the UK alone, let alone America.
Here's an interesting question, for those left leaning who support PR.
If you could have PR BUT the first election under it led to a guaranteed Tory/Reform Coalition, would you still have it or keep FPTP?
I'd want PR on a point of principle. It is then up to the voters to decide what to do with real democracy.
The only argument against PR is continuity. We’ve been FPTP for centuries so why change. On any logical understanding of democracy PR of some sort is a no brainer.
And multi member constituencies under STV preserve the local MP link while protecting you from the bad luck of a shit one. Imagine if you were a resident of Clacton or South West Norfolk after the next election and needed to talk to your MP about something like the local hospital.
Its not the only argument against pr please dont pretend it is...now dont disagree fptp is perfect but here is the difference
fptp = here is what we are going to do vote for us Pr = vote for us then we will tell you what you voted for
pr can fuck off frankly
And so can you.
Your points are nonsense. For example, nobody voting for BJ's levelling up in 2019 did so expecting that to morph into supporting Rishi cancelling HS2 by 2023.
PR allows people to vote FOR the politician they prefer. Not merely against someone. It means parliament (approximately) reflects the will of the people. It will encourage more folk to vote.
Most countries have PR. Most countries' politics are just as f*cked as ours. PR is in no way a panacea, it is merely a more accurate way for us all to express our collective, democratic will.
The idea that "most countries" vote by PR is only true because of adding a bunch of piddly tiny countries together and pretending they're all equal.
By population the overwhelming vast majority of voters in free democracies vote by FPTP. Its not even close.
Here's an interesting question, for those left leaning who support PR.
If you could have PR BUT the first election under it led to a guaranteed Tory/Reform Coalition, would you still have it or keep FPTP?
I'd want PR on a point of principle. It is then up to the voters to decide what to do with real democracy.
The only argument against PR is continuity. We’ve been FPTP for centuries so why change. On any logical understanding of democracy PR of some sort is a no brainer.
And multi member constituencies under STV preserve the local MP link while protecting you from the bad luck of a shit one. Imagine if you were a resident of Clacton or South West Norfolk after the next election and needed to talk to your MP about something like the local hospital.
Its not the only argument against pr please dont pretend it is...now dont disagree fptp is perfect but here is the difference
fptp = here is what we are going to do vote for us Pr = vote for us then we will tell you what you voted for
pr can fuck off frankly
And so can you.
Your points are nonsense. For example, nobody voting for BJ's levelling up in 2019 did so expecting that to morph into supporting Rishi cancelling HS2 by 2023.
PR allows people to vote FOR the politician they prefer. Not merely against someone. It means parliament (approximately) reflects the will of the people. It will encourage more folk to vote.
Most countries have PR. Most countries' politics are just as f*cked as ours. PR is in no way a panacea, it is merely a more accurate way for us all to express our collective, democratic will.
The idea that "most countries" vote by PR is only true because of adding a bunch of piddly tiny countries together and pretending they're all equal.
By population the overwhelming vast majority of voters in free democracies vote by FPTP. Its not even close.
£800 of tax rises whoever wins the election. And yes, that is a year, not over 4 years. I do recall writing the same on here on Thursday. This may come from a think tank but anyone looking at the deficit could surely see this.
So, on Sunak's measure this is £3,200 not £2000 and his party would have to do it too. We are spending truly absurd amounts of money compared with our income. It cannot go on.
We can afford the spending but, once again, this can only be done by soaking assets and that will piss off rich old people, who are the one constituency whom nobody dare cross. And so, on we all go, circling the plughole.
Not just them, their children too who are counting on inheriting those assets and in any case they can't cover indefinite higher and higher spending anyway
All the more reason to increase IHT and other capital taxes to pay for the transition period, some would say.
It's not as if they worked for those assets, especially with house price inflation so regionally uneven.
Yes well I know you are a hard left socialist Scot Nat of the type even closer to the Greens than Kate Forbes however I am a Tory and I believe in preserving assets built up within the family and in inherited wealth
Whereas I believe that people should be able to keep more of their own income they've worked for, not other people's incomes.
That used to be a Tory principle too. When it is once more, your party may be fit for purpose again.
No that is a classical free market liberal principle, inherited wealth is a Tory principle not free market economics. Only with the rise of Labour and free market liberals like you joining the Conservative Party to try and keep out Labour from power did it become a Tory principle
A classical free market liberal principle espoused by such free market liberals as Margaret Hilda Thatcher and more.
Its been a core Tory principle since before I was born. If you want purely 19th century Tory principles from a deceased 19th century party then you deserve to lose the election.
When the Tories want to appeal to those who work for a living and want to keep their own money, not just lay claim to other people's money, then they will be fit for office again.
The party rising fastest at the moment in the polls is the one which has a manifesto commitment to raise the IHT threshold to £2 million...ReformUK.
It is Sunak and Hunt promising to scrap National Insurance for workers (when in my view it should be ring fenced to provide some funds for state pensions, healthcare and contributions based JSA) and Sunak and Hunt promising to scrap stamp duty for most first time buyers (which is a sensible proposal)
Here's an interesting question, for those left leaning who support PR.
If you could have PR BUT the first election under it led to a guaranteed Tory/Reform Coalition, would you still have it or keep FPTP?
I'd want PR on a point of principle. It is then up to the voters to decide what to do with real democracy.
The only argument against PR is continuity. We’ve been FPTP for centuries so why change. On any logical understanding of democracy PR of some sort is a no brainer.
And multi member constituencies under STV preserve the local MP link while protecting you from the bad luck of a shit one. Imagine if you were a resident of Clacton or South West Norfolk after the next election and needed to talk to your MP about something like the local hospital.
Its not the only argument against pr please dont pretend it is...now dont disagree fptp is perfect but here is the difference
fptp = here is what we are going to do vote for us Pr = vote for us then we will tell you what you voted for
pr can fuck off frankly
And so can you.
Your points are nonsense. For example, nobody voting for BJ's levelling up in 2019 did so expecting that to morph into supporting Rishi cancelling HS2 by 2023.
PR allows people to vote FOR the politician they prefer. Not merely against someone. It means parliament (approximately) reflects the will of the people. It will encourage more folk to vote.
Most countries have PR. Most countries' politics are just as f*cked as ours. PR is in no way a panacea, it is merely a more accurate way for us all to express our collective, democratic will.
The idea that "most countries" vote by PR is only true because of adding a bunch of piddly tiny countries together and pretending they're all equal.
By population the overwhelming vast majority of voters in free democracies vote by FPTP. Its not even close.
Indonesia? Nigeria? Brazil?
Combined are a small fraction of India alone.
You're right. But only if you decide to count FPTP v PR... proportionally
Oops, Barty’s joke had completely passed me. It’s clever.
Here's an interesting question, for those left leaning who support PR.
If you could have PR BUT the first election under it led to a guaranteed Tory/Reform Coalition, would you still have it or keep FPTP?
I don't know if "left leaning" applies to me (centrist globalist liberal according to the tribes thing) but yes. If Con + Ref got over 50% of the vote and could stomach working together, then that's a deal. Yeah, it'd be a gross government from my point of view, but it would be a reflection of the country's wishes.
If Tory + Reform was over 50% then probably under FPTP we’d be labouring under a huge Tory majority. So yes, PR.
Of course Con+Brexit got 47% between them at the last election despite Brexit not standing in Tory-held seats.
Here's an interesting question, for those left leaning who support PR.
If you could have PR BUT the first election under it led to a guaranteed Tory/Reform Coalition, would you still have it or keep FPTP?
I don't know if "left leaning" applies to me (centrist globalist liberal according to the tribes thing) but yes. If Con + Ref got over 50% of the vote and could stomach working together, then that's a deal. Yeah, it'd be a gross government from my point of view, but it would be a reflection of the country's wishes.
If Tory + Reform was over 50% then probably under FPTP we’d be labouring under a huge Tory majority. So yes, PR.
Of course Con+Brexit got 47% between them at the last election despite Brexit not standing in Tory-held seats.
And even under 50% we were labouring under a pretty big Tory majority.
I've no idea if he has a chance of winning Southend and the most recent results there for the constituency won't give a guide give the unique tragic circumstances involved so I've not looked them up, but it felt good to give towards those charities while (in a tiny way) raising his profile and I wish him best of luck.
I've no idea if he has a chance of winning Southend and the most recent results there for the constituency won't give a guide give the unique tragic circumstances involved so I've not looked them up, but it felt good to give towards that and I wish him best of luck.
And I wish me more beer.
I have no idea what this is all about. I shall endeavour to find out.
I've no idea if he has a chance of winning Southend and the most recent results there for the constituency won't give a guide give the unique tragic circumstances involved so I've not looked them up, but it felt good to give towards that and I wish him best of luck.
And I wish me more beer.
I have no idea what this is all about. I shall endeavour to find out.
Essentially a tory councillor criticised the labour southend candidate for being in France during the election campaign a few hours ago. What was he doing in France atm? Parachuting into it (as an ex paratrooper) to raise money for veterans charity as part of the D-Day commenmorations. You cannot make this up.
I've no idea if he has a chance of winning Southend and the most recent results there for the constituency won't give a guide give the unique tragic circumstances involved so I've not looked them up, but it felt good to give towards that and I wish him best of luck.
And I wish me more beer.
I have no idea what this is all about. I shall endeavour to find out.
Essentially a tory councillor criticised the labour southend candidate for being in France during the election campaign a few hours ago. What was he doing in France atm? Parachuting into it (as an ex paratrooper) to raise money for veterans charity as part of the D-Day commenmorations. You cannot make this up.
Thanks for filling me in. Doesn't look good at all.
£800 of tax rises whoever wins the election. And yes, that is a year, not over 4 years. I do recall writing the same on here on Thursday. This may come from a think tank but anyone looking at the deficit could surely see this.
So, on Sunak's measure this is £3,200 not £2000 and his party would have to do it too. We are spending truly absurd amounts of money compared with our income. It cannot go on.
We can afford the spending but, once again, this can only be done by soaking assets and that will piss off rich old people, who are the one constituency whom nobody dare cross. And so, on we all go, circling the plughole.
Not just them, their children too who are counting on inheriting those assets and in any case they can't cover indefinite higher and higher spending anyway
All the more reason to increase IHT and other capital taxes to pay for the transition period, some would say.
It's not as if they worked for those assets, especially with house price inflation so regionally uneven.
Yes well I know you are a hard left socialist Scot Nat of the type even closer to the Greens than Kate Forbes however I am a Tory and I believe in preserving assets built up within the family and in inherited wealth
Whereas I believe that people should be able to keep more of their own income they've worked for, not other people's incomes.
That used to be a Tory principle too. When it is once more, your party may be fit for purpose again.
No that is a classical free market liberal principle, inherited wealth is a Tory principle not free market economics. Only with the rise of Labour and free market liberals like you joining the Conservative Party to try and keep out Labour from power did it become a Tory principle
A classical free market liberal principle espoused by such free market liberals as Margaret Hilda Thatcher and more.
Its been a core Tory principle since before I was born. If you want purely 19th century Tory principles from a deceased 19th century party then you deserve to lose the election.
When the Tories want to appeal to those who work for a living and want to keep their own money, not just lay claim to other people's money, then they will be fit for office again.
The party rising fastest at the moment in the polls is the one which has a manifesto commitment to raise the IHT threshold to £2 million...ReformUK.
It is Sunak and Hunt promising to scrap National Insurance for workers (when in my view it should be ring fenced to provide some funds for state pensions, healthcare and contributions based JSA) and Sunak and Hunt promising to scrap stamp duty for most first time buyers (which is a sensible proposal)
My longheld belief is that elections are mostly decided on the vague vibes the electorate get from a party, and specific policies contrary to those vibes can have surprisingly little impact on the public reaction.
It could be that the Tories were down to their ultra-core base of 20-24 % after Truss, and nothing much has, or is going to change that.
That might incliude Sunak's entire leadership, or even Sunak stepping down early for someome else to take over the campaign. If Sunak comes over to that way of thinking, that the pattern was all set long ago, you really couldn't blame him for wanting to take some of the blame off his exclusive shoulders after the last couple of days.
Something in that, I suspect. Mini-budget = Black Wednesday (= Iraq War?), and no number of cones hotline/National Service gimmicks is bringing you back. The die was cast. Something snapped, and most of the electorate was “don’t let the door hit you on the way out” from that point.
Team RIshi would dream of getting a “don’t let the door hit you on the way out” verdict from the voters. That's what Major got. Unless something really amazing happens very soon, the Conservatives are set for "Make sure the door hits you on the way out. And if you can somehow trap your fingers in the door as it closes, so much the better."
£800 of tax rises whoever wins the election. And yes, that is a year, not over 4 years. I do recall writing the same on here on Thursday. This may come from a think tank but anyone looking at the deficit could surely see this.
So, on Sunak's measure this is £3,200 not £2000 and his party would have to do it too. We are spending truly absurd amounts of money compared with our income. It cannot go on.
We can afford the spending but, once again, this can only be done by soaking assets and that will piss off rich old people, who are the one constituency whom nobody dare cross. And so, on we all go, circling the plughole.
Not just them, their children too who are counting on inheriting those assets and in any case they can't cover indefinite higher and higher spending anyway
All the more reason to increase IHT and other capital taxes to pay for the transition period, some would say.
It's not as if they worked for those assets, especially with house price inflation so regionally uneven.
Yes well I know you are a hard left socialist Scot Nat of the type even closer to the Greens than Kate Forbes however I am a Tory and I believe in preserving assets built up within the family and in inherited wealth
Whereas I believe that people should be able to keep more of their own income they've worked for, not other people's incomes.
That used to be a Tory principle too. When it is once more, your party may be fit for purpose again.
I am not an historian of the early modern period, but insofar as I understand it HY's Toryism seems quite compatible with that of the Hanoverians. The vision of a strictly stratified society in which the landed gentry and ruthless rent seekers dominate an underclass of dirt poor, downtrodden peasants, who work themselves into early graves so as to keep their social betters in the style to which they are accustomed, clearly appeals to him.
It'd appeal to me if I was on the right side of it.
I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
The appointment made little sense (other than avoiding a wider reshuffle), but the theory also makes no real sense, since how would doing that help Cameron, Sunak, the Tories, or the Country?
Cameron wouldn't carry on, Sunak is out in the scenario, the party is not likely to see a sudden boost in that scenario, and there's no time for it to benefit the country even if it was thought it might theoretically if he had more time.
So, and I hate to say this, I think Nadine may have this one wrong.
I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
A fun fact is that howling loon, Nadine Dorries, was actually once a cabinet minister.
No, really. Look it up. Weird, isn't it?
Notable for me is that of the two biggest Boris sycophants Dorries got a proper Secretary of State role, whilst Rees-Mogg only got Leader of the House (which organises the business of others, so important but not exactly top drawer), and it was Truss who gave him a more substantive role.
How is Starmer approval going up so much yet so many other polls and PB say there is no enthusiasm for him?
Do NOT need to be enthused by Starmer, to be seriously unenthused by Sunak.
But surely that would just see Sunak's ratings drops. SKS's are going up.
My personal view is people aren't enthused by SKS - but they do recognise he'd be a potentially good and competent PM, the more of him they see.
I think they just belive he would be vaguely competent. Nothing more. At this moment vaguely competent looks like a million times better than what we have had for the last 5 years.
How is Starmer approval going up so much yet so many other polls and PB say there is no enthusiasm for him?
Do NOT need to be enthused by Starmer, to be seriously unenthused by Sunak.
But surely that would just see Sunak's ratings drops. SKS's are going up.
My personal view is people aren't enthused by SKS - but they do recognise he'd be a potentially good and competent PM, the more of him they see.
I think they just belive he would be vaguely competent. Nothing more. At this moment vaguely competent looks like a million times better than what we have had for the last 5 years.
Until “vaguely competent” meets “once in a century combination of domestic and international issues” and we wonder why we drove all intelligent and capable people out of politics with our childish obsessions on looks, never having said anything controversial, and “gotcha” moments.
I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
A fun fact is that howling loon, Nadine Dorries, was actually once a cabinet minister.
No, really. Look it up. Weird, isn't it?
Notable for me is that of the two biggest Boris sycophants Dorries got a proper Secretary of State role, whilst Rees-Mogg only got Leader of the House (which organises the business of others, so important but not exactly top drawer), and it was Truss who gave him a more substantive role.
JRM being JRM, I suspect he saw the history of the role and was bewitched enough by it to be happy to be there in the present day. As PM you only have so much patronage and if someone is happy with trivial, you give them trivial.
How is Starmer approval going up so much yet so many other polls and PB say there is no enthusiasm for him?
Do NOT need to be enthused by Starmer, to be seriously unenthused by Sunak.
But surely that would just see Sunak's ratings drops. SKS's are going up.
My personal view is people aren't enthused by SKS - but they do recognise he'd be a potentially good and competent PM, the more of him they see.
I think they just belive he would be vaguely competent. Nothing more. At this moment vaguely competent looks like a million times better than what we have had for the last 5 years.
Vaguely competent by seeing more of him. My point is that the Tories thought he'd be exposed on the campaign trail, I kind of think the opposite.
How is Starmer approval going up so much yet so many other polls and PB say there is no enthusiasm for him?
Do NOT need to be enthused by Starmer, to be seriously unenthused by Sunak.
But surely that would just see Sunak's ratings drops. SKS's are going up.
My personal view is people aren't enthused by SKS - but they do recognise he'd be a potentially good and competent PM, the more of him they see.
I think they just belive he would be vaguely competent. Nothing more. At this moment vaguely competent looks like a million times better than what we have had for the last 5 years.
Vaguely competent by seeing more of him. My point is that the Tories thought he'd be exposed on the campaign trail, I kind of think the opposite.
Not on the campaign trail. In office. The thing that has made me think he might surprise in office is his sheer ruthlessness as LoTO. Suggests an ability to focus on the big picture.
Perhaps Sunak is sitting in his bunker hoping that when the ITV interview is finally broadcast, it will be the turning point and he will be vindicated.
The 2024 General Election has 4,519 candidates from 98 parties. The candidates are approximately 69% male. Every seat has between 5 (89 seats) and 13 (Richmond and Northallerton) candidates. An average of 7."
As well as the Tories messing up their nomination in Rotherham, the LDs did the same thing in Manchester Rusholme, (incidentally a seat which is appearing for the first time since 1950, and being contested for the first time since 1945).
How is Starmer approval going up so much yet so many other polls and PB say there is no enthusiasm for him?
Do NOT need to be enthused by Starmer, to be seriously unenthused by Sunak.
But surely that would just see Sunak's ratings drops. SKS's are going up.
My personal view is people aren't enthused by SKS - but they do recognise he'd be a potentially good and competent PM, the more of him they see.
I think they just belive he would be vaguely competent. Nothing more. At this moment vaguely competent looks like a million times better than what we have had for the last 5 years.
Until “vaguely competent” meets “once in a century combination of domestic and international issues” and we wonder why we drove all intelligent and capable people out of politics with our childish obsessions on looks, never having said anything controversial, and “gotcha” moments.
I would agree with you if any of the last 4 occupants of the position had been intelligent or capable.
Actually I do agree with you in the round but it can hardly be used as a defence of the last 4 Tory PMs.
I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
A fun fact is that howling loon, Nadine Dorries, was actually once a cabinet minister.
No, really. Look it up. Weird, isn't it?
One wonders IF the 1st Duke of Wellington (with some experience re: prime ministerial selection, Tory cabals AND ornery women) would have retorted to her Not-a-Ladyship:
How is Starmer approval going up so much yet so many other polls and PB say there is no enthusiasm for him?
Do NOT need to be enthused by Starmer, to be seriously unenthused by Sunak.
But surely that would just see Sunak's ratings drops. SKS's are going up.
My personal view is people aren't enthused by SKS - but they do recognise he'd be a potentially good and competent PM, the more of him they see.
I think they just belive he would be vaguely competent. Nothing more. At this moment vaguely competent looks like a million times better than what we have had for the last 5 years.
Until “vaguely competent” meets “once in a century combination of domestic and international issues” and we wonder why we drove all intelligent and capable people out of politics with our childish obsessions on looks, never having said anything controversial, and “gotcha” moments.
I would agree with you if any of the last 4 occupants of the position had been intelligent or capable.
Actually I do agree with you in the round but it can hardly be used as a defence of the last 4 Tory PMs.
We're adjusting to living in the social media, everything-is-recorded era. It cannot be that long until we all start to understand everyone has a past and additionally with the way societal norms are transitioning faster (and not necessarily in the same direction) anyone without something in their past is frankly starting to seem suspect. An example of that in the last couple of days was the tory(?) candidate who pulled out over those pictures of teenagers with "slut" and "whore" or whatever on them in luminous paint at an under 18 club night, or whatever it was. That was totally acceptable at the time, with Loaded and whatever magazine "otter's pocket" was invented in and so on. Probably will be in another decade actually, especially if we've given 16 year olds the vote. The current infantilism of teenagers is bizarre (and I say that as someone with a very young daughter, but also someone who was a feral 14 year old that still made it to the same poly as TSE) but that's for another discussion.
I may even be able to join politics in another 15 years. I've not done anything as bad as trump. Just need some ideas or demagoguery.
This isn't just a problem in politics. Look at the police where you can be chucked out for not "challenging" banter on Whatsapp.
Rt Hon Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
I find this hard to believe if only because it would be so unprecedented. Has there ever been a party leader - let alone PM - who has just given up mid-campaign? And thought: you know what - turns out I'm no good at this, and somebody, anybody else would be better? If he really was minded to do this, I'd uave said he should have done it before nominations closed, and bequeathed his nomination as Conservative candidate in the still-probably-safe seat of Richmond. Still, stupider things have happened.
Rt Hon Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
I find this hard to believe if only because it would be so unprecedented. Has there ever been a party leader - let alone PM - who has just given up mid-campaign? And thought: you know what - turns out I'm no good at this, and somebody, anybody else would be better? If he really was minded to do this, I'd uave said he should have done it before nominations closed, and bequeathed his nomination as Conservative candidate in the still-probably-safe seat of Richmond. Still, stupider things have happened.
“stupider things have happened”
In U.K. politics, when has stupider thing than Rishi dropping out at this point happened?
How is Starmer approval going up so much yet so many other polls and PB say there is no enthusiasm for him?
Do NOT need to be enthused by Starmer, to be seriously unenthused by Sunak.
But surely that would just see Sunak's ratings drops. SKS's are going up.
My personal view is people aren't enthused by SKS - but they do recognise he'd be a potentially good and competent PM, the more of him they see.
I think they just belive he would be vaguely competent. Nothing more. At this moment vaguely competent looks like a million times better than what we have had for the last 5 years.
Vaguely competent by seeing more of him. My point is that the Tories thought he'd be exposed on the campaign trail, I kind of think the opposite.
Not on the campaign trail. In office. The thing that has made me think he might surprise in office is his sheer ruthlessness as LoTO. Suggests an ability to focus on the big picture.
IIRC, when he was President, Ronald Reagan "clocked-off" around 5pm, had some tea with his wife, watched a film or whatever, then went to bed around 9/10. The ability not to get swamped by detail is an important part of the job.
Rt Hon Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
I find this hard to believe if only because it would be so unprecedented. Has there ever been a party leader - let alone PM - who has just given up mid-campaign? And thought: you know what - turns out I'm no good at this, and somebody, anybody else would be better? If he really was minded to do this, I'd uave said he should have done it before nominations closed, and bequeathed his nomination as Conservative candidate in the still-probably-safe seat of Richmond. Still, stupider things have happened.
“stupider things have happened”
In U.K. politics, when has stupider thing than Rishi dropping out at this point happened?
I can’t think of one.
If we take out policy, and just focus on tactical polotical moves ... OTTOMH, I'd say the anointing of Humza Yousaf was stupider. There is at least a potential upside to Rishi letting someone else have a go, albeit slim. There was never an upside to letting Humza take the reins. Beyond that, I'm struggling.
At the moment I'm thinking the result could be something like this: Lab 40%, Con 25%, Ref 15%, LD 12%, Grn 4%. Not yet convinced of the crossover scenario.
Rt Hon Nadine Dorries @NadineDorries I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
I find this hard to believe if only because it would be so unprecedented. Has there ever been a party leader - let alone PM - who has just given up mid-campaign? And thought: you know what - turns out I'm no good at this, and somebody, anybody else would be better? If he really was minded to do this, I'd uave said he should have done it before nominations closed, and bequeathed his nomination as Conservative candidate in the still-probably-safe seat of Richmond. Still, stupider things have happened.
“stupider things have happened”
In U.K. politics, when has stupider thing than Rishi dropping out at this point happened?
I can’t think of one.
Thorpe is still stupider.
Almost anything that happens or happened in NI seems stupider to me too but I'm sure there's some internal logic.
At the moment I'm thinking the result could be something like this: Lab 40%, Con 25%, Ref 15%, LD 12%, Grn 4%. Not yet convinced of the crossover scenario.
Clive Bull on LBC just now discussing a poll which says 30% of 18 to 24s aren't even registered to vote.
I think that's the sort of statistic which points to Labour not getting much more than 40% on the day.
How is Starmer approval going up so much yet so many other polls and PB say there is no enthusiasm for him?
Do NOT need to be enthused by Starmer, to be seriously unenthused by Sunak.
But surely that would just see Sunak's ratings drops. SKS's are going up.
My personal view is people aren't enthused by SKS - but they do recognise he'd be a potentially good and competent PM, the more of him they see.
I think they just belive he would be vaguely competent. Nothing more. At this moment vaguely competent looks like a million times better than what we have had for the last 5 years.
Until “vaguely competent” meets “once in a century combination of domestic and international issues” and we wonder why we drove all intelligent and capable people out of politics with our childish obsessions on looks, never having said anything controversial, and “gotcha” moments.
I would agree with you if any of the last 4 occupants of the position had been intelligent or capable.
Actually I do agree with you in the round but it can hardly be used as a defence of the last 4 Tory PMs.
Oh it wasn’t meant as one. Wasn’t really meant as a defence of any PM since Wilson or, on a charitable day, Thatcher. And I’m too young to have voted for other.
At the moment I'm thinking the result could be something like this: Lab 40%, Con 25%, Ref 15%, LD 12%, Grn 4%. Not yet convinced of the crossover scenario.
Clive Bull on LBC just now discussing a poll which says 30% of 18 to 24s aren't even registered to vote.
I think that's the sort of statistic which points to Labour not getting much more than 40% on the day.
The polling numbers take account of turnout. The voting demographics have turned against Labour - that's why the crossover age is over 60.
If (and it's a big if) "youth" turnout is a bit higher than usual, they are even more screwed than shown in the polls.
Here's an interesting question, for those left leaning who support PR.
If you could have PR BUT the first election under it led to a guaranteed Tory/Reform Coalition, would you still have it or keep FPTP?
I'd want PR on a point of principle. It is then up to the voters to decide what to do with real democracy.
The only argument against PR is continuity. We’ve been FPTP for centuries so why change. On any logical understanding of democracy PR of some sort is a no brainer.
And multi member constituencies under STV preserve the local MP link while protecting you from the bad luck of a shit one. Imagine if you were a resident of Clacton or South West Norfolk after the next election and needed to talk to your MP about something like the local hospital.
Its not the only argument against pr please dont pretend it is...now dont disagree fptp is perfect but here is the difference
fptp = here is what we are going to do vote for us Pr = vote for us then we will tell you what you voted for
pr can fuck off frankly
And so can you.
Your points are nonsense. For example, nobody voting for BJ's levelling up in 2019 did so expecting that to morph into supporting Rishi cancelling HS2 by 2023.
PR allows people to vote FOR the politician they prefer. Not merely against someone. It means parliament (approximately) reflects the will of the people. It will encourage more folk to vote.
Most countries have PR. Most countries' politics are just as f*cked as ours. PR is in no way a panacea, it is merely a more accurate way for us all to express our collective, democratic will.
The idea that "most countries" vote by PR is only true because of adding a bunch of piddly tiny countries together and pretending they're all equal.
By population the overwhelming vast majority of voters in free democracies vote by FPTP. Its not even close.
India accounts for about two thirds of all the FPTP votes, mind.
I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
The appointment made little sense (other than avoiding a wider reshuffle), but the theory also makes no real sense, since how would doing that help Cameron, Sunak, the Tories, or the Country?
Cameron wouldn't carry on, Sunak is out in the scenario, the party is not likely to see a sudden boost in that scenario, and there's no time for it to benefit the country even if it was thought it might theoretically if he had more time.
So, and I hate to say this, I think Nadine may have this one wrong.
As Cameron is not an MP, he could not be PM after the election.
Basically, the story is... What's the word... Ridiculous
At the moment I'm thinking the result could be something like this: Lab 40%, Con 25%, Ref 15%, LD 12%, Grn 4%. Not yet convinced of the crossover scenario.
Clive Bull on LBC just now discussing a poll which says 30% of 18 to 24s aren't even registered to vote.
I think that's the sort of statistic which points to Labour not getting much more than 40% on the day.
Then it is surprising there is no voter registration drive, or maybe there is on TikTok or wherever the cool kids hang out these days.
The last day to register to vote is Tuesday, 18 June.
Based on the downloadable csv file from your link, RefUK is boycotting Sheffield. No Reform candidate is listed in:-
1 Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney 2 Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven 3 Bristol East 4 Cambridge 5 Cheltenham 6 Chorley 7 Doncaster North 8 Earley and Woodley 9 East Grinstead and Uckfield 10 Epping Forest 11 Hexham 12 Leeds South 13 Maidenhead 14 Mid Dorset and North Poole 15 Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland 16 Oxford East 17 Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough 18 Sheffield Central 19 Sheffield Hallam 20 Sheffield Heeley 21 Sheffield South East 22 West Dorset
I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
The appointment made little sense (other than avoiding a wider reshuffle), but the theory also makes no real sense, since how would doing that help Cameron, Sunak, the Tories, or the Country?
Cameron wouldn't carry on, Sunak is out in the scenario, the party is not likely to see a sudden boost in that scenario, and there's no time for it to benefit the country even if it was thought it might theoretically if he had more time.
So, and I hate to say this, I think Nadine may have this one wrong.
As Cameron is not an MP, he could not be PM after the election.
Basically, the story is... What's the word... Ridiculous
Alec Douglas-Home says Hi.
In 1963 ADH was PM whilst being a peer and then after renouncing his peerages neither a member of either House of Parliament, until he won a by-election 20 days later.
Mike and others have often looked at the personal ratings on the belief that voting intention follows the approval, but in this instance I wonder whether approval is following the voting intention, as voters conclude during the campaign that, yes, they really are going to have to vote Labour to bring this ridiculous government to an end, and they're going to rationalise that decision by revising their opinion of Starmer upwards - projecting all their hopes onto him, because what other choice do they have?
I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
The appointment made little sense (other than avoiding a wider reshuffle), but the theory also makes no real sense, since how would doing that help Cameron, Sunak, the Tories, or the Country?
Cameron wouldn't carry on, Sunak is out in the scenario, the party is not likely to see a sudden boost in that scenario, and there's no time for it to benefit the country even if it was thought it might theoretically if he had more time.
So, and I hate to say this, I think Nadine may have this one wrong.
As Cameron is not an MP, he could not be PM after the election.
Basically, the story is... What's the word... Ridiculous
Alec Douglas-Home says Hi.
In 1963 ADH was PM whilst being a peer and then after renouncing his peerages neither a member of either House of Parliament, until he won a by-election 20 days later.
Sir Alec could renounce his hereditary peerage thanks to legislation passed for Tony Benn. Cameron, as a life peer, cannot, although he can give up his right to sit in the Lords.
But an additional problem since 1963, when new leaders and Prime Ministers just emerged, is the Conservative Party's own rulebook.
In practice, we have a Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister already, so Cameron is not even next on the list.
Based on the downloadable csv file from your link, RefUK is boycotting Sheffield. No Reform candidate is listed in:-
1 Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney 2 Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven 3 Bristol East 4 Cambridge 5 Cheltenham 6 Chorley 7 Doncaster North 8 Earley and Woodley 9 East Grinstead and Uckfield 10 Epping Forest 11 Hexham 12 Leeds South 13 Maidenhead 14 Mid Dorset and North Poole 15 Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland 16 Oxford East 17 Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough 18 Sheffield Central 19 Sheffield Hallam 20 Sheffield Heeley 21 Sheffield South East 22 West Dorset
1 Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney 2 Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven 3 Bristol East 4 Cambridge 5 Cheltenham 6 Chorley 7 Doncaster North 8 Earley and Woodley 9 East Grinstead and Uckfield 10 Epping Forest 11 Hexham 12 Leeds South 13 Maidenhead 14 Mid Dorset and North Poole 15 Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland 16 Oxford East 17 Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough 18 Sheffield Central 19 Sheffield Hallam 20 Sheffield Heeley 21 Sheffield South East 22 Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge 23 West Dorset
I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
The appointment made little sense (other than avoiding a wider reshuffle), but the theory also makes no real sense, since how would doing that help Cameron, Sunak, the Tories, or the Country?
Cameron wouldn't carry on, Sunak is out in the scenario, the party is not likely to see a sudden boost in that scenario, and there's no time for it to benefit the country even if it was thought it might theoretically if he had more time.
So, and I hate to say this, I think Nadine may have this one wrong.
As Cameron is not an MP, he could not be PM after the election.
Basically, the story is... What's the word... Ridiculous
Alec Douglas-Home says Hi.
In 1963 ADH was PM whilst being a peer and then after renouncing his peerages neither a member of either House of Parliament, until he won a by-election 20 days later.
Sir Alec could renounce his hereditary peerage thanks to legislation passed for Tony Benn. Cameron, as a life peer, cannot, although he can give up his right to sit in the Lords.
But an additional problem since 1963, when new leaders and Prime Ministers just emerged, is the Conservative Party's own rulebook.
In practice, we have a Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister already, so Cameron is not even next on the list.
I think the only resignation scenario that works in an election is if he quits as leader but not PM. Quitting as PM would drag the monarch into politics and you simply don’t do that.
I could see a situation where Rishi relinquishes the leadership immediately, someone gets nominated as acting leader for the rest of the campaign with an admission the election is over and to try to maximise the size of the parliamentary party in opposition. It’s risky and a very long shot in my view, far more likely that Rishi stays on in both posts but is essentially sidelined in his own campaign.
Post election I think the Tories will need to completely reinvent themselves. There’s been a grassroots movement to elect the Party Chairman which might gain traction, I think there is a decent case for having an official deputy leader as most other parties have, there might be a case for combining the two roles somehow, but it seems strange that the party doesn’t have an official deputy leader.
I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
The appointment made little sense (other than avoiding a wider reshuffle), but the theory also makes no real sense, since how would doing that help Cameron, Sunak, the Tories, or the Country?
Cameron wouldn't carry on, Sunak is out in the scenario, the party is not likely to see a sudden boost in that scenario, and there's no time for it to benefit the country even if it was thought it might theoretically if he had more time.
So, and I hate to say this, I think Nadine may have this one wrong.
As Cameron is not an MP, he could not be PM after the election.
Basically, the story is... What's the word... Ridiculous
Alec Douglas-Home says Hi.
In 1963 ADH was PM whilst being a peer and then after renouncing his peerages neither a member of either House of Parliament, until he won a by-election 20 days later.
Sir Alec could renounce his hereditary peerage thanks to legislation passed for Tony Benn. Cameron, as a life peer, cannot, although he can give up his right to sit in the Lords.
But an additional problem since 1963, when new leaders and Prime Ministers just emerged, is the Conservative Party's own rulebook.
In practice, we have a Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister already, so Cameron is not even next on the list.
Does that mean should Sunak resign during the campaign the mechanism in place supposes he is replaced as PM by DPM Ollie Dowden? Likewise should candidate Starmer fall under a bus, he is replaced by candidate Rayner.
I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
The appointment made little sense (other than avoiding a wider reshuffle), but the theory also makes no real sense, since how would doing that help Cameron, Sunak, the Tories, or the Country?
Cameron wouldn't carry on, Sunak is out in the scenario, the party is not likely to see a sudden boost in that scenario, and there's no time for it to benefit the country even if it was thought it might theoretically if he had more time.
So, and I hate to say this, I think Nadine may have this one wrong.
As Cameron is not an MP, he could not be PM after the election.
Basically, the story is... What's the word... Ridiculous
Alec Douglas-Home says Hi.
In 1963 ADH was PM whilst being a peer and then after renouncing his peerages neither a member of either House of Parliament, until he won a by-election 20 days later.
Sir Alec could renounce his hereditary peerage thanks to legislation passed for Tony Benn. Cameron, as a life peer, cannot, although he can give up his right to sit in the Lords.
But an additional problem since 1963, when new leaders and Prime Ministers just emerged, is the Conservative Party's own rulebook.
In practice, we have a Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister already, so Cameron is not even next on the list.
I think the only resignation scenario that works in an election is if he quits as leader but not PM. Quitting as PM would drag the monarch into politics and you simply don’t do that.
I could see a situation where Rishi relinquishes the leadership immediately, someone gets nominated as acting leader for the rest of the campaign with an admission the election is over and to try to maximise the size of the parliamentary party in opposition. It’s risky and a very long shot in my view, far more likely that Rishi stays on in both posts but is essentially sidelined in his own campaign.
Post election I think the Tories will need to completely reinvent themselves. There’s been a grassroots movement to elect the Party Chairman which might gain traction, I think there is a decent case for having an official deputy leader as most other parties have, there might be a case for combining the two roles somehow, but it seems strange that the party doesn’t have an official deputy leader.
Rishi is only going to quit during an election campaign if he has some sort of mental health crisis, and simply cannot continue. In that situation Cabinet would recommend a replacement PM to the King. Notwithstanding that there is a Deputy PM, I would expect that replacement PM to be Cameron, on the basis of being most reassuring generally in what would be a moment of crisis for the country. Also, his appointment wouldn't skew the subsequent contest for leadership of the party.
I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
The appointment made little sense (other than avoiding a wider reshuffle), but the theory also makes no real sense, since how would doing that help Cameron, Sunak, the Tories, or the Country?
Cameron wouldn't carry on, Sunak is out in the scenario, the party is not likely to see a sudden boost in that scenario, and there's no time for it to benefit the country even if it was thought it might theoretically if he had more time.
So, and I hate to say this, I think Nadine may have this one wrong.
As Cameron is not an MP, he could not be PM after the election.
Basically, the story is... What's the word... Ridiculous
Alec Douglas-Home says Hi.
In 1963 ADH was PM whilst being a peer and then after renouncing his peerages neither a member of either House of Parliament, until he won a by-election 20 days later.
Sir Alec could renounce his hereditary peerage thanks to legislation passed for Tony Benn. Cameron, as a life peer, cannot, although he can give up his right to sit in the Lords.
But an additional problem since 1963, when new leaders and Prime Ministers just emerged, is the Conservative Party's own rulebook.
In practice, we have a Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister already, so Cameron is not even next on the list.
The point being you don't have to be a member of either house of parliament to be Prime Minister. Also being Deputy Prime PM is effectively a honorific. Would Clegg have been PM is Cameron had suddenly died in office? I think not.
Verstappen is below evens. Given he's scored 51 points in the last three races while Norris (and Leclerc) has scored 55, that seems a little too short.
I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
The appointment made little sense (other than avoiding a wider reshuffle), but the theory also makes no real sense, since how would doing that help Cameron, Sunak, the Tories, or the Country?
Cameron wouldn't carry on, Sunak is out in the scenario, the party is not likely to see a sudden boost in that scenario, and there's no time for it to benefit the country even if it was thought it might theoretically if he had more time.
So, and I hate to say this, I think Nadine may have this one wrong.
As Cameron is not an MP, he could not be PM after the election.
Basically, the story is... What's the word... Ridiculous
Alec Douglas-Home says Hi.
In 1963 ADH was PM whilst being a peer and then after renouncing his peerages neither a member of either House of Parliament, until he won a by-election 20 days later.
Sir Alec could renounce his hereditary peerage thanks to legislation passed for Tony Benn. Cameron, as a life peer, cannot, although he can give up his right to sit in the Lords.
But an additional problem since 1963, when new leaders and Prime Ministers just emerged, is the Conservative Party's own rulebook.
In practice, we have a Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister already, so Cameron is not even next on the list.
I think the only resignation scenario that works in an election is if he quits as leader but not PM. Quitting as PM would drag the monarch into politics and you simply don’t do that.
I could see a situation where Rishi relinquishes the leadership immediately, someone gets nominated as acting leader for the rest of the campaign with an admission the election is over and to try to maximise the size of the parliamentary party in opposition. It’s risky and a very long shot in my view, far more likely that Rishi stays on in both posts but is essentially sidelined in his own campaign.
Post election I think the Tories will need to completely reinvent themselves. There’s been a grassroots movement to elect the Party Chairman which might gain traction, I think there is a decent case for having an official deputy leader as most other parties have, there might be a case for combining the two roles somehow, but it seems strange that the party doesn’t have an official deputy leader.
Rishi is only going to quit during an election campaign if he has some sort of mental health crisis, and simply cannot continue. In that situation Cabinet would recommend a replacement PM to the King. Notwithstanding that there is a Deputy PM, I would expect that replacement PM to be Cameron, on the basis of being most reassuring generally in what would be a moment of crisis for the country. Also, his appointment wouldn't skew the subsequent contest for leadership of the party.
Indeed, it just highlights what a hell of a mess the Tories are in that they are in the midst of an election campaign with a leader who is a disaster and no means of extricating themselves from it. Also IIRC had the FTPA not been repealed the election would have been in May by default, so the net effect of that change was to gain 2 months in office. Was it really worth it?
The results and tallies so far do seem to confirm the change in the opinion polls over the last six months - Sinn Fein losing their commanding lead and Independents doing very strongly. In my own neck of the cattle pasture, Independents, including the new party for Independents (Independents Ireland) received a combined 45.5% of the first preference vote, and Sinn Fein contrived to come last, behind even the Green party.
At the moment I'm thinking the result could be something like this: Lab 40%, Con 25%, Ref 15%, LD 12%, Grn 4%. Not yet convinced of the crossover scenario.
Clive Bull on LBC just now discussing a poll which says 30% of 18 to 24s aren't even registered to vote.
I think that's the sort of statistic which points to Labour not getting much more than 40% on the day.
Then it is surprising there is no voter registration drive, or maybe there is on TikTok or wherever the cool kids hang out these days.
The last day to register to vote is Tuesday, 18 June.
Voters in that age bracket are a relatively small cohort, with a relatively low turnout, that's also disproportionately concentrated in university seats that are normally safe Labour. For all those reasons, nobody cares about them.
The principal fight in this election is a tug of war between Labour and the Tories over comfortably off voters aged 55+. Labour wants to reassure them that Starmer is a safe pair of hands (so that those already unenthusiastic about the Tories can feel safe about abandoning them, whether this means staying at home or voting for any other party,) whilst the Conservatives are completely desperate to bribe, cajole and scare them into remaining onboard.
Based on the downloadable csv file from your link, RefUK is boycotting Sheffield. No Reform candidate is listed in:-
1 Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney 2 Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven 3 Bristol East 4 Cambridge 5 Cheltenham 6 Chorley 7 Doncaster North 8 Earley and Woodley 9 East Grinstead and Uckfield 10 Epping Forest 11 Hexham 12 Leeds South 13 Maidenhead 14 Mid Dorset and North Poole 15 Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland 16 Oxford East 17 Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough 18 Sheffield Central 19 Sheffield Hallam 20 Sheffield Heeley 21 Sheffield South East 22 West Dorset
1 Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney 2 Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven 3 Bristol East 4 Cambridge 5 Cheltenham 6 Chorley 7 Doncaster North 8 Earley and Woodley 9 East Grinstead and Uckfield 10 Epping Forest 11 Hexham 12 Leeds South 13 Maidenhead 14 Mid Dorset and North Poole 15 Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland 16 Oxford East 17 Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough 18 Sheffield Central 19 Sheffield Hallam 20 Sheffield Heeley 21 Sheffield South East 22 Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge 23 West Dorset
Interesting that Sheffield deemed to be largely unreformable....
The Tories will put benefit reforms at the heart of their election campaign on Sunday as Rishi Sunak seeks to turn things around following a difficult week
The results and tallies so far do seem to confirm the change in the opinion polls over the last six months - Sinn Fein losing their commanding lead and Independents doing very strongly. In my own neck of the cattle pasture, Independents, including the new party for Independents (Independents Ireland) received a combined 45.5% of the first preference vote, and Sinn Fein contrived to come last, behind even the Green party.
It's surprising to see just how far SF have fallen back. This might change as the counts come in but it's not the shoo in for a seat in government they expected.
I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
The appointment made little sense (other than avoiding a wider reshuffle), but the theory also makes no real sense, since how would doing that help Cameron, Sunak, the Tories, or the Country?
Cameron wouldn't carry on, Sunak is out in the scenario, the party is not likely to see a sudden boost in that scenario, and there's no time for it to benefit the country even if it was thought it might theoretically if he had more time.
So, and I hate to say this, I think Nadine may have this one wrong.
As Cameron is not an MP, he could not be PM after the election.
Basically, the story is... What's the word... Ridiculous
Alec Douglas-Home says Hi.
In 1963 ADH was PM whilst being a peer and then after renouncing his peerages neither a member of either House of Parliament, until he won a by-election 20 days later.
Sir Alec could renounce his hereditary peerage thanks to legislation passed for Tony Benn. Cameron, as a life peer, cannot, although he can give up his right to sit in the Lords.
But an additional problem since 1963, when new leaders and Prime Ministers just emerged, is the Conservative Party's own rulebook.
In practice, we have a Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister already, so Cameron is not even next on the list.
I think the only resignation scenario that works in an election is if he quits as leader but not PM. Quitting as PM would drag the monarch into politics and you simply don’t do that.
I could see a situation where Rishi relinquishes the leadership immediately, someone gets nominated as acting leader for the rest of the campaign with an admission the election is over and to try to maximise the size of the parliamentary party in opposition. It’s risky and a very long shot in my view, far more likely that Rishi stays on in both posts but is essentially sidelined in his own campaign.
Post election I think the Tories will need to completely reinvent themselves. There’s been a grassroots movement to elect the Party Chairman which might gain traction, I think there is a decent case for having an official deputy leader as most other parties have, there might be a case for combining the two roles somehow, but it seems strange that the party doesn’t have an official deputy leader.
Rishi is only going to quit during an election campaign if he has some sort of mental health crisis, and simply cannot continue. In that situation Cabinet would recommend a replacement PM to the King. Notwithstanding that there is a Deputy PM, I would expect that replacement PM to be Cameron, on the basis of being most reassuring generally in what would be a moment of crisis for the country. Also, his appointment wouldn't skew the subsequent contest for leadership of the party.
Indeed, it just highlights what a hell of a mess the Tories are in that they are in the midst of an election campaign with a leader who is a disaster and no means of extricating themselves from it. Also IIRC had the FTPA not been repealed the election would have been in May by default, so the net effect of that change was to gain 2 months in office. Was it really worth it?
I think that, if you weren't planning to hold on until the autumn or the winter, then it would have been much better to have the election in May. At the time I'd wondered whether the Lee Anderson defection to Reform had been timed to disrupt calling the election for May.
So I think it's safe to assume that the original plan was to hang on for longer, but something happened which changed the decision. I think that's the main advantage to a PM of repealing the FTPA, that the PM has the flexibility to react to events to pick a date whenever they want.
I imagine there will be competing stories about what happened that led to the election being held on July 4th. The hypothesis that the King may have been given only a limited period left to live, and so they decided the election had to happen earlier, to avoid the death of a Monarch during an election campaign, is superficially appealing, only because I struggle to think of any other rational explanation.
The Tories will put benefit reforms at the heart of their election campaign on Sunday as Rishi Sunak seeks to turn things around following a difficult week
Mike and others have often looked at the personal ratings on the belief that voting intention follows the approval, but in this instance I wonder whether approval is following the voting intention, as voters conclude during the campaign that, yes, they really are going to have to vote Labour to bring this ridiculous government to an end, and they're going to rationalise that decision by revising their opinion of Starmer upwards - projecting all their hopes onto him, because what other choice do they have?
It is not just our GE that is happening but also EU elections today
It does seem the EU are looking at an increase in the right and disruptive voices, some on a par with Farage
We do have quite a number of contributors to our forum who are wholly in thrall with the EU who do not seem to like to talk about what may be about to happen and with Orban heading the EU for the next 6 months
I would be interested to hear how they see the future in a much changing EU
How is Starmer approval going up so much yet so many other polls and PB say there is no enthusiasm for him?
Do NOT need to be enthused by Starmer, to be seriously unenthused by Sunak.
But surely that would just see Sunak's ratings drops. SKS's are going up.
My personal view is people aren't enthused by SKS - but they do recognise he'd be a potentially good and competent PM, the more of him they see.
I think they just belive he would be vaguely competent. Nothing more. At this moment vaguely competent looks like a million times better than what we have had for the last 5 years.
Vaguely competent by seeing more of him. My point is that the Tories thought he'd be exposed on the campaign trail, I kind of think the opposite.
It was widely assumed on this Site that Starmer's lack of charisma would be a drag on the campaign trail. Whilst I wouldn't call him charismatic, he's certainly not lacking in a certain pleasantness, even charm on a good day.
This is another example of the kind of false assumption that has caused the odds on the Tories to be too short. I still think they are too short, and continue to bet accordingly.
The Tories will put benefit reforms at the heart of their election campaign on Sunday as Rishi Sunak seeks to turn things around following a difficult week
The results and tallies so far do seem to confirm the change in the opinion polls over the last six months - Sinn Fein losing their commanding lead and Independents doing very strongly. In my own neck of the cattle pasture, Independents, including the new party for Independents (Independents Ireland) received a combined 45.5% of the first preference vote, and Sinn Fein contrived to come last, behind even the Green party.
It's surprising to see just how far SF have fallen back. This might change as the counts come in but it's not the shoo in for a seat in government they expected.
Does you know when the Euro seats get counted.
Officially the Euro count can't get started until the voting ends in all EU countries, at 10pm tonight. The count in Ireland is expected to start on Monday morning - presumably they will do their best to wrap up the local election counts today. The tallies have Sinn Fein struggling to get the third MEP they were expecting, so no sign of joy for SF there either.
I don't quite understand how the government's monumental failures to deal with the issue of immigration has led to Sinn Fein's support cratering, instead of the government parties, but certainly all my confident talk of Mary Lou McDonald becoming taoiseach after the next election is looking a bit previous. She seems to be getting a very frosty reception on the doorstep.
The Tories will put benefit reforms at the heart of their election campaign on Sunday as Rishi Sunak seeks to turn things around following a difficult week
War gaming the vulnerable, including those with mental ill health who don’t fit shitty Sunak’s Singaporean dystopia.
As per. And as usual it will take years to undo the damage caused by their rhetoric.
What a nasty, wicked, horrible, bunch they are. If they lose on July 4th I shall be celebrating in the streets.
Depends on what benefit reforms.
A big problem with underutilisation in the workforce is the rate of withdrawal of benefit as you earn.
I’ve sat across from people who want to work more than 16 hours a week, can do really good work. We *wanted* them to do more.
But if they start doing more than that they lose benefits at a rate that leaves them (effectively) pennies per hour for doing a hard job.
We are paying people not to work. Penalising them if they do more.
A few do work the extra hours, to push through to full employment and better rates of pay. I’m always astonished and kinda humbled by those who do. All that extra work for so little…
Mike and others have often looked at the personal ratings on the belief that voting intention follows the approval, but in this instance I wonder whether approval is following the voting intention, as voters conclude during the campaign that, yes, they really are going to have to vote Labour to bring this ridiculous government to an end, and they're going to rationalise that decision by revising their opinion of Starmer upwards - projecting all their hopes onto him, because what other choice do they have?
He has a lovely smile!
I'll tell you who has a lovely smile - Tommy Meskill, RTE political correspondent. He was doing a report from one of the count centres before the count had begun, and you could tell that he was so excited by the prospect of the days of counting to come, that he couldn't contain the grin from spreading across his face, and he even had dimples! He's normally so good at keeping such a neutral facial expression, but he's in raptures now.
Here's an interesting question, for those left leaning who support PR.
If you could have PR BUT the first election under it led to a guaranteed Tory/Reform Coalition, would you still have it or keep FPTP?
I'd want PR on a point of principle. It is then up to the voters to decide what to do with real democracy.
The only argument against PR is continuity. We’ve been FPTP for centuries so why change. On any logical understanding of democracy PR of some sort is a no brainer.
And multi member constituencies under STV preserve the local MP link while protecting you from the bad luck of a shit one. Imagine if you were a resident of Clacton or South West Norfolk after the next election and needed to talk to your MP about something like the local hospital.
Its not the only argument against pr please dont pretend it is...now dont disagree fptp is perfect but here is the difference
fptp = here is what we are going to do vote for us Pr = vote for us then we will tell you what you voted for
pr can fuck off frankly
And so can you.
Your points are nonsense. For example, nobody voting for BJ's levelling up in 2019 did so expecting that to morph into supporting Rishi cancelling HS2 by 2023.
PR allows people to vote FOR the politician they prefer. Not merely against someone. It means parliament (approximately) reflects the will of the people. It will encourage more folk to vote.
Most countries have PR. Most countries' politics are just as f*cked as ours. PR is in no way a panacea, it is merely a more accurate way for us all to express our collective, democratic will.
The idea that "most countries" vote by PR is only true because of adding a bunch of piddly tiny countries together and pretending they're all equal.
By population the overwhelming vast majority of voters in free democracies vote by FPTP. Its not even close.
The Tories will put benefit reforms at the heart of their election campaign on Sunday as Rishi Sunak seeks to turn things around following a difficult week
The results and tallies so far do seem to confirm the change in the opinion polls over the last six months - Sinn Fein losing their commanding lead and Independents doing very strongly. In my own neck of the cattle pasture, Independents, including the new party for Independents (Independents Ireland) received a combined 45.5% of the first preference vote, and Sinn Fein contrived to come last, behind even the Green party.
It's surprising to see just how far SF have fallen back. This might change as the counts come in but it's not the shoo in for a seat in government they expected.
Does you know when the Euro seats get counted.
Officially the Euro count can't get started until the voting ends in all EU countries, at 10pm tonight. The count in Ireland is expected to start on Monday morning - presumably they will do their best to wrap up the local election counts today. The tallies have Sinn Fein struggling to get the third MEP they were expecting, so no sign of joy for SF there either.
I don't quite understand how the government's monumental failures to deal with the issue of immigration has led to Sinn Fein's support cratering, instead of the government parties, but certainly all my confident talk of Mary Lou McDonald becoming taoiseach after the next election is looking a bit previous. She seems to be getting a very frosty reception on the doorstep.
If that trend sticks then it will be interesting to see if FF\FG coalition continues. I suspect not as both will have a big enough core vote to form a government. SF might be seen as a coalition partner by FF.
How is Starmer approval going up so much yet so many other polls and PB say there is no enthusiasm for him?
Do NOT need to be enthused by Starmer, to be seriously unenthused by Sunak.
But surely that would just see Sunak's ratings drops. SKS's are going up.
My personal view is people aren't enthused by SKS - but they do recognise he'd be a potentially good and competent PM, the more of him they see.
It's a seesaw, methinks. If Sunak is going down down down, then Starmer must be going up.
Seeing as how nobody thinks Davey OR Farage (or etc., etc.) is gonna be the next Prime Minister.
Partly true, SSI, but I think stories of Starmer's lack of appeal were exaggerated.
For a long while now he has been following a strategy of doing as little as possible to distract his opponents from hole-digging. Now that he is obliged to be more in the public eye, he has come across as a perfectly normal, sane and sensible individual. In the current context, that clears the bar by a distance.
He will never be described as charismatic, but I don't think that is what is needed right now. Sometimes steady-as-she-goes is the winning approach.
£800 of tax rises whoever wins the election. And yes, that is a year, not over 4 years. I do recall writing the same on here on Thursday. This may come from a think tank but anyone looking at the deficit could surely see this.
So, on Sunak's measure this is £3,200 not £2000 and his party would have to do it too. We are spending truly absurd amounts of money compared with our income. It cannot go on.
We can afford the spending but, once again, this can only be done by soaking assets and that will piss off rich old people, who are the one constituency whom nobody dare cross. And so, on we all go, circling the plughole.
Not just them, their children too who are counting on inheriting those assets and in any case they can't cover indefinite higher and higher spending anyway
All the more reason to increase IHT and other capital taxes to pay for the transition period, some would say.
It's not as if they worked for those assets, especially with house price inflation so regionally uneven.
Yes well I know you are a hard left socialist Scot Nat of the type even closer to the Greens than Kate Forbes however I am a Tory and I believe in preserving assets built up within the family and in inherited wealth
Whereas I believe that people should be able to keep more of their own income they've worked for, not other people's incomes.
That used to be a Tory principle too. When it is once more, your party may be fit for purpose again.
I am not an historian of the early modern period, but insofar as I understand it HY's Toryism seems quite compatible with that of the Hanoverians. The vision of a strictly stratified society in which the landed gentry and ruthless rent seekers dominate an underclass of dirt poor, downtrodden peasants, who work themselves into early graves so as to keep their social betters in the style to which they are accustomed, clearly appeals to him.
At the moment I'm thinking the result could be something like this: Lab 40%, Con 25%, Ref 15%, LD 12%, Grn 4%. Not yet convinced of the crossover scenario.
Clive Bull on LBC just now discussing a poll which says 30% of 18 to 24s aren't even registered to vote.
I think that's the sort of statistic which points to Labour not getting much more than 40% on the day.
The polling numbers take account of turnout. The voting demographics have turned against Labour - that's why the crossover age is over 60.
If (and it's a big if) "youth" turnout is a bit higher than usual, they are even more screwed than shown in the polls.
Fox jr2 and his girlfriend won't be voting as they are in Australia and won't be back. Its too late to fix a proxy vote. His is a safe Labour seat in the East End so probably won't matter much. I am sure he's not the only student who disappeared immediately after exams finished.
I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
The appointment made little sense (other than avoiding a wider reshuffle), but the theory also makes no real sense, since how would doing that help Cameron, Sunak, the Tories, or the Country?
Cameron wouldn't carry on, Sunak is out in the scenario, the party is not likely to see a sudden boost in that scenario, and there's no time for it to benefit the country even if it was thought it might theoretically if he had more time.
So, and I hate to say this, I think Nadine may have this one wrong.
As Cameron is not an MP, he could not be PM after the election.
Basically, the story is... What's the word... Ridiculous
Alec Douglas-Home says Hi.
In 1963 ADH was PM whilst being a peer and then after renouncing his peerages neither a member of either House of Parliament, until he won a by-election 20 days later.
Sir Alec could renounce his hereditary peerage thanks to legislation passed for Tony Benn. Cameron, as a life peer, cannot, although he can give up his right to sit in the Lords.
But an additional problem since 1963, when new leaders and Prime Ministers just emerged, is the Conservative Party's own rulebook.
In practice, we have a Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister already, so Cameron is not even next on the list.
I think the only resignation scenario that works in an election is if he quits as leader but not PM. Quitting as PM would drag the monarch into politics and you simply don’t do that.
I could see a situation where Rishi relinquishes the leadership immediately, someone gets nominated as acting leader for the rest of the campaign with an admission the election is over and to try to maximise the size of the parliamentary party in opposition. It’s risky and a very long shot in my view, far more likely that Rishi stays on in both posts but is essentially sidelined in his own campaign.
Post election I think the Tories will need to completely reinvent themselves. There’s been a grassroots movement to elect the Party Chairman which might gain traction, I think there is a decent case for having an official deputy leader as most other parties have, there might be a case for combining the two roles somehow, but it seems strange that the party doesn’t have an official deputy leader.
Rishi is only going to quit during an election campaign if he has some sort of mental health crisis, and simply cannot continue. In that situation Cabinet would recommend a replacement PM to the King. Notwithstanding that there is a Deputy PM, I would expect that replacement PM to be Cameron, on the basis of being most reassuring generally in what would be a moment of crisis for the country. Also, his appointment wouldn't skew the subsequent contest for leadership of the party.
Indeed, it just highlights what a hell of a mess the Tories are in that they are in the midst of an election campaign with a leader who is a disaster and no means of extricating themselves from it. Also IIRC had the FTPA not been repealed the election would have been in May by default, so the net effect of that change was to gain 2 months in office. Was it really worth it?
I think that, if you weren't planning to hold on until the autumn or the winter, then it would have been much better to have the election in May. At the time I'd wondered whether the Lee Anderson defection to Reform had been timed to disrupt calling the election for May.
So I think it's safe to assume that the original plan was to hang on for longer, but something happened which changed the decision. I think that's the main advantage to a PM of repealing the FTPA, that the PM has the flexibility to react to events to pick a date whenever they want.
I imagine there will be competing stories about what happened that led to the election being held on July 4th. The hypothesis that the King may have been given only a limited period left to live, and so they decided the election had to happen earlier, to avoid the death of a Monarch during an election campaign, is superficially appealing, only because I struggle to think of any other rational explanation.
As you’re our man on the ground, so to speak, with good local knowledge is there any reason for the decline in support for Sinn Fein ?
The Tories will put benefit reforms at the heart of their election campaign on Sunday as Rishi Sunak seeks to turn things around following a difficult week
War gaming the vulnerable, including those with mental ill health who don’t fit shitty Sunak’s Singaporean dystopia.
As per. And as usual it will take years to undo the damage caused by their rhetoric.
What a nasty, wicked, horrible, bunch they are. If they lose on July 4th I shall be celebrating in the streets.
The proposals that they put out a few months ago are essentially to get unqualified people to replace GPs and make assessments likely based on targets so those already suffering especially with mental health problems are thrown under a bus.
It’s yet more othering and throwing red meat to the baying angry mob .
Comments
Even excluding India I believe it would still be true.
Most European "countries" combined are less than the UK alone, let alone America.
And the Isle of Ely called their Mam a whore.
It is Sunak and Hunt promising to scrap National Insurance for workers (when in my view it should be ring fenced to provide some funds for state pensions, healthcare and contributions based JSA) and Sunak and Hunt promising to scrap stamp duty for most first time buyers (which is a sensible proposal)
GO BAYO ALABA
I've no idea if he has a chance of winning Southend and the most recent results there for the constituency won't give a guide give the unique tragic circumstances involved so I've not looked them up, but it felt good to give towards those charities while (in a tiny way) raising his profile and I wish him best of luck.
And I wish me more beer.
Essentially a tory councillor criticised the labour southend candidate for being in France during the election campaign a few hours ago. What was he doing in France atm? Parachuting into it (as an ex paratrooper) to raise money for veterans charity as part of the D-Day commenmorations. You cannot make this up.
My personal view is people aren't enthused by SKS - but they do recognise he'd be a potentially good and competent PM, the more of him they see.
I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
Cameron wouldn't carry on, Sunak is out in the scenario, the party is not likely to see a sudden boost in that scenario, and there's no time for it to benefit the country even if it was thought it might theoretically if he had more time.
So, and I hate to say this, I think Nadine may have this one wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4581089.stm
Rt Hon Nadine Dorries
@NadineDorries
I have always said that Cameron was popped into the Lords and into a senior ministerial post for a reason.
I thought maybe it was to replace Sunak at an earlier stage.
Rumours around tonight that Sunak’s about to fall on his sword.
There are no MPs - only Ministers.
If Sunak does resign, any replacement would have to come from within Ministerial ranks…
Seeing as how nobody thinks Davey OR Farage (or etc., etc.) is gonna be the next Prime Minister.
No, really. Look it up. Weird, isn't it?
@ABLPoli
The 2024 General Election has 4,519 candidates from 98 parties. The candidates are approximately 69% male. Every seat has between 5 (89 seats) and 13 (Richmond and Northallerton) candidates. An average of 7."
https://x.com/ABLPoli/status/1799343820150304997
As well as the Tories messing up their nomination in Rotherham, the LDs did the same thing in Manchester Rusholme, (incidentally a seat which is appearing for the first time since 1950, and being contested for the first time since 1945).
Actually I do agree with you in the round but it can hardly be used as a defence of the last 4 Tory PMs.
"Publish and be damned . . . but not Damed."
I may even be able to join politics in another 15 years. I've not done anything as bad as trump. Just need some ideas or demagoguery.
This isn't just a problem in politics. Look at the police where you can be chucked out for not "challenging" banter on Whatsapp.
If he really was minded to do this, I'd uave said he should have done it before nominations closed, and bequeathed his nomination as Conservative candidate in the still-probably-safe seat of Richmond.
Still, stupider things have happened.
In U.K. politics, when has stupider thing than Rishi dropping out at this point happened?
I can’t think of one.
Beyond that, I'm struggling.
Almost anything that happens or happened in NI seems stupider to me too but I'm sure there's some internal logic.
I think that's the sort of statistic which points to Labour not getting much more than 40% on the day.
If (and it's a big if) "youth" turnout is a bit higher than usual, they are even more screwed than shown in the polls.
Basically, the story is... What's the word... Ridiculous
The last day to register to vote is Tuesday, 18 June.
The former Defence Secretary denied accusations of "dirty tricks" after the last-minute defection - something the Conservative Party said was "utter rubbish"
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/reform-candidate-saves-gavin-williamsons-32988540
It looks like we might need to add Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge to the list.
In 1963 ADH was PM whilst being a peer and then after renouncing his peerages neither a member of either House of Parliament, until he won a by-election 20 days later.
But an additional problem since 1963, when new leaders and Prime Ministers just emerged, is the Conservative Party's own rulebook.
In practice, we have a Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister already, so Cameron is not even next on the list.
Open Democracy has updated its candidates file linked from
https://democracyclub.org.uk/blog/2024/05/27/2024-general-election-data-and-resources-for-campaigners-journalists-and-researchers/
so we now have Reform UK not standing in the following 23 GB seats (or anywhere in Northern Ireland):-
1 Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney
2 Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven
3 Bristol East
4 Cambridge
5 Cheltenham
6 Chorley
7 Doncaster North
8 Earley and Woodley
9 East Grinstead and Uckfield
10 Epping Forest
11 Hexham
12 Leeds South
13 Maidenhead
14 Mid Dorset and North Poole
15 Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland
16 Oxford East
17 Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough
18 Sheffield Central
19 Sheffield Hallam
20 Sheffield Heeley
21 Sheffield South East
22 Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge
23 West Dorset
I could see a situation where Rishi relinquishes the leadership immediately, someone gets nominated as acting leader for the rest of the campaign with an admission the election is over and to try to maximise the size of the parliamentary party in opposition. It’s risky and a very long shot in my view, far more likely that Rishi stays on in both posts but is essentially sidelined in his own campaign.
Post election I think the Tories will need to completely reinvent themselves. There’s been a grassroots movement to elect the Party Chairman which might gain traction, I think there is a decent case for having an official deputy leader as most other parties have, there might be a case for combining the two roles somehow, but it seems strange that the party doesn’t have an official deputy leader.
F1: putting together the pre-race ramble. Always seems odd that Ladbrokes don't complete the markets by morning. Plenty of time to do it.
FF and FG doing well in Irelands elections SF not so much
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/elections-2024/local-and-european-elections-2024-sinn-fein-struggle-as-fianna-fail-and-fine-gael-battle-it-out-for-top-spot/a1657554728.html
https://www.irishtimes.com/
Betting PostF1: tricky to decide between Russell and Norris for value, went for Russell at 4.6 as he starts on pole. Norris at 6 or so also well worth considering.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2024/06/canada-pre-race-2024.html
Verstappen is below evens. Given he's scored 51 points in the last three races while Norris (and Leclerc) has scored 55, that seems a little too short.
https://www.rte.ie/news/elections-2024/results/#/local/national
The results and tallies so far do seem to confirm the change in the opinion polls over the last six months - Sinn Fein losing their commanding lead and Independents doing very strongly. In my own neck of the cattle pasture, Independents, including the new party for Independents (Independents Ireland) received a combined 45.5% of the first preference vote, and Sinn Fein contrived to come last, behind even the Green party.
The principal fight in this election is a tug of war between Labour and the Tories over comfortably off voters aged 55+. Labour wants to reassure them that Starmer is a safe pair of hands (so that those already unenthusiastic about the Tories can feel safe about abandoning them, whether this means staying at home or voting for any other party,) whilst the Conservatives are completely desperate to bribe, cajole and scare them into remaining onboard.
https://x.com/skynews/status/1799673842266214830?s=46
There’s no way this can go horribly wrong…
Does you know when the Euro seats get counted.
So I think it's safe to assume that the original plan was to hang on for longer, but something happened which changed the decision. I think that's the main advantage to a PM of repealing the FTPA, that the PM has the flexibility to react to events to pick a date whenever they want.
I imagine there will be competing stories about what happened that led to the election being held on July 4th. The hypothesis that the King may have been given only a limited period left to live, and so they decided the election had to happen earlier, to avoid the death of a Monarch during an election campaign, is superficially appealing, only because I struggle to think of any other rational explanation.
As per. And as usual it will take years to undo the damage caused by their rhetoric.
What a nasty, wicked, horrible, bunch they are. If they lose on July 4th I shall be celebrating in the streets.
It is not just our GE that is happening but also EU elections today
It does seem the EU are looking at an increase in the right and disruptive voices, some on a par with Farage
We do have quite a number of contributors to our forum who are wholly in thrall with the EU who do not seem to like to talk about what may be about to happen and with Orban heading the EU for the next 6 months
I would be interested to hear how they see the future in a much changing EU
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/09/hundreds-of-millions-head-to-polls-on-final-day-of-european-elections?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
This is another example of the kind of false assumption that has caused the odds on the Tories to be too short. I still think they are too short, and continue to bet accordingly.
I don't quite understand how the government's monumental failures to deal with the issue of immigration has led to Sinn Fein's support cratering, instead of the government parties, but certainly all my confident talk of Mary Lou McDonald becoming taoiseach after the next election is looking a bit previous. She seems to be getting a very frosty reception on the doorstep.
A big problem with underutilisation in the workforce is the rate of withdrawal of benefit as you earn.
I’ve sat across from people who want to work more than 16 hours a week, can do really good work. We *wanted* them to do more.
But if they start doing more than that they lose benefits at a rate that leaves them (effectively) pennies per hour for doing a hard job.
We are paying people not to work. Penalising them if they do more.
A few do work the extra hours, to push through to full employment and better rates of pay. I’m always astonished and kinda humbled by those who do. All that extra work for so little…
For a long while now he has been following a strategy of doing as little as possible to distract his opponents from hole-digging. Now that he is obliged to be more in the public eye, he has come across as a perfectly normal, sane and sensible individual. In the current context, that clears the bar by a distance.
He will never be described as charismatic, but I don't think that is what is needed right now. Sometimes steady-as-she-goes is the winning approach.
I'm not surprised by Deltapoll's figures.
It’s yet more othering and throwing red meat to the baying angry mob .