According to an excellent long read by Tim Shipman in tomorrow’s Sunday Times last Monday morning at a meeting with aides the PM was apoplectic and raging about his Chancellor. This had been sparked by Sunak’s leaked letter to his boss a calling significant easing of the coronavirus travel restrictions and other measures. Shipman writes:
Forget Boris Derangement Syndrome, if true this is Deranged Boris Syndrome.
I think we can all think of an explanation more to do with if Boris puts the effort in to read his boxes.
Besides, I thought all government was conducted by WhatsApp group now?
A senior Tory said of Johnson: “His personal numbers are dropping like a stone. His unfavourables are going up and his favourables are going down. The critical concern for Boris is that he is prime minister because he is a winner. As soon as he is not, he has very few allies in and around the party.”
Few expect a reshuffle before the new year but it is understood that Johnson has, in the past, considered Truss, a former chief secretary to the Treasury, as Britain’s first female chancellor, with Jacob Rees-Mogg as her deputy. “The PM keeps talking about Liz Truss,” a source said. “He’s always got on quite well with her. He thinks she’s controllable.”
Apart from that wicket, they’ve looked in no trouble at all.
I'd have thought the threat leaking when it almost certainly won't happen suggests Sunak leaked it and feels safe, for now.
You asked for it...
I say this as someone that wants Boris out and Sunak in as soon as possible.
There was nothing “factually true or accurate” about the Leave or BetterTogether campaigns. Lying through your teeth works.
Mind you, after hubris comes nemesis.
The poll for The Telegraph suggests that the UK Government's handling of Covid-19 vaccines may have boosted the standing of the union in Scotland, with 57 per cent agreeing that the successful early procurement of vaccines by Whitehall demonstrated the benefits of the union.
However, 38 per cent of respondents said that Ms Sturgeon and Holyrood deserved the most credit for the success of the vaccine rollout in Scotland, compared to only 22 per cent who said that Boris Johnson and Westminster deserved the most credit.
As for the rest of the poll, I'd remind you of the dangers of hypothetical polling.
Hypothetical polls are a lot like Hawaiian pizzas, they should be avoided at all costs by right thinking people everywhere.
The irony being of course that Leave was the equivalent of Yes Scotland, not Better Together, and used many of their arguments,
It's the story of so many British Governments - the breakdown in relations between Numbers 10 and 11.
There are two types of Chancellor - the ambitious and the technocratic. The former has men like Osborne, Brown, Heath, Callaghan, Jenkins, Healey and Sunak among others, men who expect to be if not the next Prime Minister of leader of their party then to be a very strong contender for that post.
On the other, you have the "money men" such as Barber, Lawson, Darling and to an extent Lamont. They have reached the top of the political tree and want to be left to do their job competently and with the minimum interference from next door.
Yet, it makes no difference - the relationship breaks down as trust or confidence is lost.
In this respect, the decline of the Johnson-Sunak relationship is of no great surprise.
The second part of it is this - Johnson is safe as Conservative leader until both the following conditions are met - a) he looks like a loser and b) someone else looks like a winner.
No party removes a leader until or unless there is a better alternative in terms of electability (or ensuring backbenches in marginal seats keep their jobs).
So his inner deceased ovine is what he needs.
Alistair Carmichael lied through his teeth and the bovine London media swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
(Have I just mixed too many metaphors there?)
But I tihnk you are right about the two conditions for Boris to go. Despite personal ratings issues that's not enough on its own.
One more strike and wankerdom absolutely confirmed,
I’m just enjoying your rank inability to move on.
I just don't see what the connection is with Carmichael being a big old liar. Or indeed with the Leave or BetterTogether campaigns. The report about Boris/Sunak being untrue isn't part of some wider political or media campaign.
Was Heath Shadow Chancellor under Douglas-Hume after the 1964 election defeat or was he the "Treasury and Economics Spokesman" ?
Just look at Annelise Dodds...
“Dire result for Labour” suits me. They are the last remaining bulwark shoring up the crippled Union.
Do you also believe in the magic money tree?
Lawson eventually resigned but Thatcher was forced out as PM and leader a year later and replaced by Lawson's successor, John Major
'A Presbyterian would wonder why they need bishops at all, never mind something so centralising as archbishops and a London-based mortal as the head of the C of E (though I do understand that the Cantuar:/Ebor: division deviates from neat centralisation).'
The Church of England is a Protestant church but also a Catholic and Apolostic church which believes in and practices the liturgy while having some evangelicals within it. Much like the Scottish Episcopal Church.
The Presbyterian church by contrast is more of an evangelical church.
If the C of E ceased to have bishops it would become a largely evangelical church and cease to be a Catholic and Apostolic Church, leading Anglo Catholics within it in particular to move to Rome
Richi let's not forget was behind the 'Eat Out to Help Out' campaign which measured in lives will certainly dwarf Harold Shipman.
Both out would be best but Richi's a good start
And the Battle of Berlin of 1813 is actually known as the Battle of Grossbeeren (or Großbeeren if you're into that sort of thing):
Sunak strikes me as a serious grafter. I suspect he is also absolutely ruthless. He is more than a match for a lazy-arsed chancer.
But I'm still bemused as to your point. No I don't think whether something is true or not inherently matters all the time nor did I say so so gods only knows why you brought it up, but there are times truth does matter - here the question is did Boris threaten to demote Sunak or not. If he did, then that matters for self evident reasons. If he didn't, then the fact of it being untrue does actually matter, since it would mean the Boris/Sunak relationship is not at the point of breaking down.
You just seem to be intent with banging some drum about a past political campaign and trying to relate that to a very individual situation between Boris and Sunak, and the question of their relationship - if they are actually bosom pals who play tennis together every day or some such rubbish, then the report being true or untrue would matter.
To use your example, Carmichael's lie didn't matter much in the moment because it was useful as part of a cause - it couldn't be proven instantly, and his allies had no care whether it was true or not. If Boris and Sunak are getting along great, then the lie would not aid anyone since their relationship would be unaffected by the lie, whereas Carmichael's like (he hoped) would have an effect.
Can't you see the difference between those situations? For whatever reason you seem to think a general philosophical point was being made, but this is about specifcs.
Even if a lie would have an effect, and here it wouldn't, if something is true or not and that is proven it affects things moving forward so still matters at least to an extent. Carmichael presumably doesn't lie about everything, but he must find it harder to defend against such an accusation because of the falsehoods he made.
We're all cynical about politics and know untruths have effect. But it's not 'deep' or wise to pretend that that literally means it doesn't matter what is true or not at least sometimes.
Don’t even go there.
Reinvesting some of my Charity Shield winnings.
Leicester dominated that. Pep played the kids, but badly needs a proper striker. Grealish gets a gold🏅 in the diving, the baboon arsed Villa reject.
Scottish independence voting intention:
, 04 - 05 Aug
Redfield & Wilton Strategies
Would Scots support or oppose a referendum on Scottish independence being held...
...in the next year?
...later than a year from now, but within the next five years?
Not so much while he was alive and in power.
Though I imagine this po-pot was pretty safe to have in the commode:
I would not have a problem adding a few prominent evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals and Presbyterians and Methodists but as they tend to have fewer Bishops and in the case of Presbyterians none at all rather more difficult to choose them unless you randomly pick some pastors, ministers and elders
On the other hand, the revolutionary wars were eventually used to justify the abolition of slavery under Grenville in 1807.
Either would make Johnson look like an utter genius.
In public, of course, it's all congenial and friendly but I just suspect Osborne would have dumped Cameron had the latter failed to win the 2015 GE and tacked the party more to the Right.
Perhaps then can we all move on, as we all confront the reality of the situation,
When I first heard it, I was quite small and thought they sang ‘Boney was a worrier.’
The irony being of course one way he won his battles was by not worrying about the lives of his men.