A few more of you big brains have arisen from slumber so - cummon - can I have responses to my post early this morning:
If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP, which of these scenarios would play out?:
1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP
or
2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition
Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.
Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.
I think no Coalition, but Confidence and Supply only, with support on a bill by bill basis. Probably shortlived as a government with a further election after 18-24 months.
As @DecrepiterJohnL suggests below, is there some principled or constitutional rule that would actually prevent SNP from entering coalition and holding cabinet positions?
As for the LDs, would Davey give up the chance of being, say, Deputy PM or Chancellor?
He claims to have been a member for over 50 years and was vice-Chair of the party,. But HY will insist he isn't a true Tory and can be ignored. As can the Tory voters saying they can't vote Tory as they never were Tories and anyway Bromley was never a Tory seat etc etc etc etc.
Erm ... as Mike points out this only polled Con-Lab marginals.
It didn't poll all those places in the south where you are now about to lose your blue wall to the LibDems: see Bob Neil's article about what's happening in his constituency of Bromley.
Nor did it look at Scotland and Wales.
Cling to your desperate signs HY if you like but you are disappearing down a rabbit hole of self-delusion.
The advance of the LDs is indeed a very worrying sign for the Conservative Party and its electoral prospects. I see they were up to 14% in one poll, and they seem pretty bullish about Tiverton.
Btw, Hyufd fights on the front line. You can't afford self-delusion there.
Surely the front line is people like HYUFD, but who live and operate in the marginal constituencies being discussed?
As much as the South is slowly trending away from the Tories due to the increasing housing problems there, I would not consider Epping Forest with its 22,173 vote majority remotely on the 'front line'
We Conservatives in Epping Forest will be fine regardless yes, we were Tory even in 1997 and 2001 and 2005 and Dame Eleanor got over 60% in 2019 and the Tories still have a majority on the council.
Housing problems and lack of home owners is also more a London problem. If anything it is building too much on the greenbelt which the LDs scaremonger about locally here
I'm sure that the survival of Fortress Epping in all its ideological purity will be a great consolation to all the other Tories, including Mr J.
A few more of you big brains have arisen from slumber so - cummon - can I have responses to my post early this morning:
If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP, which of these scenarios would play out?:
1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP
or
2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition
Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.
Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.
3) Labour rules as a minority government. Refuses to offer a Coalition. It introduces things the SNP like. A referendum in 4 years time. And things the LD's like. PR for Councils and possibly HoL? The latter would be a multi year project. And nowt else radical. They are able to command a solid majority in practice. Meanwhile. The Conservative Party has to confront its ideological incoherence and has a difficult debate about what the heck it is for. Then Labour goes to the country after two years. It's the Wilson playbook. They need to win first of course. And a lot depends on the numbers of course.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
Yes, that is very fair. Almost any PM would have struggled with the last few years. I think the importance of Brexit is constantly overstated but there is also no question that the country has been deeply divided by it just as we in Scotland continue to be deeply divided by independence. Divided countries are never easy to govern but it needs a PM who can work hard at bringing people together and developing a sense of common purpose. Boris is almost the antithitis of this. He thrives on division, scorn and lying. It has undoubtedly aggravated the situation.
david, none would have lied, cheated and behaved like Boris. Can be no trying to waistcoat that he is a rancid lying lowlife.
It's fine. Let the Right continue with their willy-obsession for the next two years.
The country will boot them out.
Good morning
The key is to oust Boris and the sooner the better
Rishi made an extraordinary play for popularity this week with a support package far more generous than labour and has attracted compliments from many including the IFS
His vow to upgrade pensions and benefits by this September's inflation rate next April is huge and it must not be forgotten he is to address business taxes this Autumn
He has promised further help next year if necessary and will have several more opportunities to reduce tax before the next GE including the already announced 19% standard rate in April 24
There is so much for conservatives mps to be positive about once Boris is gone and his dead weight on the party removed
I really hope over this holiday period they come to their senses and do the right thing..
Also my pre Rishi announcement to reassess Rishi for next PM may not be so outlandish
He next needs to find the funds for a public sector pay rise. The BMA is preparing for industrial action if the proposed 8% real terms paycut is implemented. Other unions no doubt the same.
A few more of you big brains have arisen from slumber so - cummon - can I have responses to my post early this morning:
If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP, which of these scenarios would play out?:
1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP
or
2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition
Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.
Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.
LDs could go either way, but I don't know if their numbers would make it worthwhile. SNP wouldn't join a coalition if asked, and wouldn't be asked anyway.
It's fine. Let the Right continue with their willy-obsession for the next two years.
The country will boot them out.
Good morning
The key is to oust Boris and the sooner the better
Rishi made an extraordinary play for popularity this week with a support package far more generous than labour and has attracted compliments from many including the IFS
His vow to upgrade pensions and benefits by this September's inflation rate next April is huge and it must not be forgotten he is to address business taxes this Autumn
He has promised further help next year if necessary and will have several more opportunities to reduce tax before the next GE including the already announced 19% standard rate in April 24
There is so much for conservatives mps to be positive about once Boris is gone and his dead weight on the party removed
I really hope over this holiday period they come to their senses and do the right thing..
Also my pre Rishi announcement to reassess Rishi for next PM may not be so outlandish
He next needs to find the funds for a public sector pay rise. The BMA is preparing for industrial action if the proposed 8% real terms paycut is implemented. Other unions no doubt the same.
This is coming winter is going be an economic nightmare. And looks like could be a major flu season on top.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Whilst there is no real coherence to what this government is doing, there is no alternative plan outlined by Labour. To an extent, I understand why as the Tories steal Labour policies such as the windfall tax*, so a need to keep things under wraps. I just hope something is going on under cover.
*actually first mooted by the LibDems, I believe, not that I particularly support it.
The windfall tax is a terrible idea. It damages our reputation as a place that is suitable for investment and it does it for what is effectively spare change. The reality is that the incredibly high prices for fuel have already given the government a windfall of tax through both VAT and CT for those companies lucky enough to gain from the prices. They really didn't need more to focus on those who needed focused on, namely those on UC. To further damage our reputation as an economic safe haven to increase the level of bribes to parts of the electorate the government need was very poor economics and not even particularly smart politics.
Taking your point the fact that this stupidity is what Labour were coming up with as an alternative to the government policy (now abandoned) does not inspire optimism.
why would any business invest or investors invest in business if governments have the full power to take what they like when they like? This government is not conservative , its not competent (the deficit and debt is out of control as is inflation) , its hypocritical (on partygate) and its arrogant (BJ and Sunak not resigning)
F1: some interesting things in practice. Bottas just not troubling the top half of the timesheets is unexpected. And Norris could be worth a shot for a podium at 8.2.
Right now, Sainz at 7 for qualifying (or 6 each way with Ladbrokes) is tempting. And if Red Bull can sort themselves out then Perez at 15 (or 22 on Betfair) is way too long.
I'd suggest hedging, as traffic or errors can easily halt fast laps.
Bottas had to sit out the whole P1 session with an engine problem, so he was down on running yesterday. Sainz at 7 is great value, especially if you can get an e/w on the front row.
The only thing that matters at the next election is that Johnson’s Tories lose power. The Conservative party as it is currently led and operates presents a clear and present threat to democracy and the rule of law, and must be stopped. It’s that simple. Hopefully, some time in opposition will allow for a period of reflection, shame and reconstitution.
By definition, the if there’s an election, then that will be democracy.
I suppose one could argue the scrapping of the fixed term parliaments act was anti-democractic as it bought the government another six months. But if we go beyond may 2024, then I think it’s safe to say the Tories are done.
Elections are necessary, but insufficient to qualify a democracy. If a government uses its power to bend the law or ministerial code so the rules do not apply to it, we do have a major problem. We saw that in the US in Jan 2021.
Oh cut the crap.
The changes to the Ministerial Code are codifying in practice what has long already happened anyway, and were changes recommended by the Standards Committee, which I believe has amongst its members such well known Tory stooges as *checks notes* Dame Margaret Beckett.
In the aftermath of the Patterson scandal the PM promised to implement whatever changes were recommended by the Committee, after that was demanded by MPs across the House. Now that he's done so, you're complaining about it.
There's plenty of serious stuff to complain about the PM for, without resorting to artificial synthetic outrage.
Sorry, I think I touched a nerve.
That's the most clichéd and ridiculous thing to write on a discussion forum. If someone calls you out for writing nonsense, then rather than defend the nonsense just say "I must have touched a nerve" and make it about the other person, rather than the fact you wrote nonsense.
I want the PM to go, I've said so for a long time now. But to say he is undermining democracy because he implemented the reforms recommended by the Standards Committee after MPs around the house demanded that he implements the reforms recommended by the Standards Committee, and after he pledged in the House to implement the reforms recommended by the Standards Committee is just utterly ridiculous.
If he didn't implement these reforms, then you'd be complaining that he'd lied to the House when he said he would. If he does, he's undermining democracy.
Chill Phil. It’s Saturday. This government chips away at the rules and continually pushes it’s luck. A little bend here, a little fine here. The way this change to the code has been executed, whilst not as bad as say the illegal prorogation of Parliament, is a predictable part of that trend.
But anyway, you’re right. Boris has done worse things and must go.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Our current leaflet (featuring a cartoon by Marf, who many will remember) focus on "Do you really want another SEVEN YEARS of this?" - on the basis of the Tories winning re-election in two years' time.
What we have seen over the last 40 odd years is that changes of government in this country are rare and difficult to achieve. Your question is pertinent. For all Boris's failings and failures Labour are a long way from sealing the deal.
Erm ... as Mike points out this only polled Con-Lab marginals.
It didn't poll all those places in the south where you are now about to lose your blue wall to the LibDems: see Bob Neil's article about what's happening in his constituency of Bromley.
Nor did it look at Scotland and Wales.
Cling to your desperate signs HY if you like but you are disappearing down a rabbit hole of self-delusion.
The advance of the LDs is indeed a very worrying sign for the Conservative Party and its electoral prospects. I see they were up to 14% in one poll, and they seem pretty bullish about Tiverton.
Btw, Hyufd fights on the front line. You can't afford self-delusion there.
We had a LD once who we reckon lost us votes everytime he canvassed so all power to his elbow.
Erm ... as Mike points out this only polled Con-Lab marginals.
It didn't poll all those places in the south where you are now about to lose your blue wall to the LibDems: see Bob Neil's article about what's happening in his constituency of Bromley.
Nor did it look at Scotland and Wales.
Cling to your desperate signs HY if you like but you are disappearing down a rabbit hole of self-delusion.
So what? LD gains or SNP gains add 0 to the chances of a Labour majority and yes it included Conservative v Labour marginals in Wales
That is a stupid comment even from you. LDs winning Tory seats and SNP winning Tory seats does nothing for a Labour majority?
Use whats left of a brain for a moment - you used to have one. All parties bar maybe the DUP are against you. LD and SNP gains means fewer Tory MPs. The lower your number the greater the anti-Tory parties. It doesn't matter whether Labour win a majority or not - they can lock you out of power permanently with a grand coalition that rewrites the electoral system and embeds safeguards against crooks in power into the constitution.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
Not really. Thatcher had the Falklands. Major had the gulf war and ERM debacle. Blair had 9/11 and the dot com bubble. Brown had global financial collapse. May had the 2016 aftermath,
Only Cameron had it relatively easy, but he contrived to shoot himself in the foot.
Falklands and the Gulf War were serious and comparable to the war with Ukraine, but that still makes Boris's first couple of years rather uniquely serious in having Covid and War to deal with.
ERM and 9/11 were in the PM's respective second terms after they'd already won re-election. The fact you're grasping for things they dealt with in their second terms shows just how manic this first term has been, we do live in "interesting times".
I don't think you can count the 2016 aftermath for May as that wasn't an event to occur after she was elected, it was what she was elected to deal with. Similarly, you must say the same about Boris for Brexit.
So the only one that leaves comparable is possibly Brown, though again that was one event (economic) rather than multiple (plague and war and economy).
It's fine. Let the Right continue with their willy-obsession for the next two years.
The country will boot them out.
Good morning
The key is to oust Boris and the sooner the better
Rishi made an extraordinary play for popularity this week with a support package far more generous than labour and has attracted compliments from many including the IFS
His vow to upgrade pensions and benefits by this September's inflation rate next April is huge and it must not be forgotten he is to address business taxes this Autumn
He has promised further help next year if necessary and will have several more opportunities to reduce tax before the next GE including the already announced 19% standard rate in April 24
There is so much for conservatives mps to be positive about once Boris is gone and his dead weight on the party removed
I really hope over this holiday period they come to their senses and do the right thing..
Also my pre Rishi announcement to reassess Rishi for next PM may not be so outlandish
He next needs to find the funds for a public sector pay rise. The BMA is preparing for industrial action if the proposed 8% real terms paycut is implemented. Other unions no doubt the same.
This is coming winter is going be an economic nightmare. And looks like could be a major flu season on top.
I am not a member of the BMA but even those supine government lackeys are sending warning shots:
Real-terms pay cuts and punitive pension tax rules are driving doctors from the NHS; it is ‘utterly reprehensible’ for Government to suggest they be subject to pay restraint to help bail it out of its mismanagement of inflation.
A few more of you big brains have arisen from slumber so - cummon - can I have responses to my post early this morning:
If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP, which of these scenarios would play out?:
1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP
or
2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition
Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.
Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.
3) Labour rules as a minority government. Refuses to offer a Coalition. It introduces things the SNP like. A referendum in 4 years time. And things the LD's like. PR for Councils and possibly HoL? The latter would be a multi year project. And nowt else radical. They are able to command a solid majority in practice. Meanwhile. The Conservative Party has to confront its ideological incoherence and has a difficult debate about what the heck it is for. Then Labour goes to the country after two years. It's the Wilson playbook. They need to win first of course. And a lot depends on the numbers of course.
This is only possible if LP wins most seats (but no majority).
What if CP win most seats but no majority and the only majority that can be found is LP/LD/SNP?
A few more of you big brains have arisen from slumber so - cummon - can I have responses to my post early this morning:
If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP, which of these scenarios would play out?:
1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP
or
2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition
Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.
Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.
3) Labour rules as a minority government. Refuses to offer a Coalition. It introduces things the SNP like. A referendum in 4 years time. And things the LD's like. PR for Councils and possibly HoL? The latter would be a multi year project. And nowt else radical. They are able to command a solid majority in practice. Meanwhile. The Conservative Party has to confront its ideological incoherence and has a difficult debate about what the heck it is for. Then Labour goes to the country after two years. It's the Wilson playbook. They need to win first of course. And a lot depends on the numbers of course.
This is only possible if LP wins most seats (but no majority).
What if CP win most seats but no majority and the only majority that can be found is LP/LD/SNP?
Is it? It's perfectly possible to rule as the second largest Party provided you can pass a Queen's Speech. Although the media and Tories would kick up a stink.
Ashfield is a bit sui generis with a strong Zadrozny performance there last time, bit Bassetlaw, and particularly Dudley North aren't really marginal. Bassetlaw is seat 232 and Dudley North 155 for the Tories. To my mind everything else going points to massive trouble for the Tories, Labour won't need the SNP if its as bad as this for the blues. Straight Lib Lab deal to have a commanding majority
Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.
Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won
We live in exceptional times, Hyufd, and the world may look a different place in a couple of years time, the election scenario especially.
Where I think Heathener and others have a point is that when one Party has persistent poll leads it's solidifies the vote and becomes more difficult for the other team to turn round. Labour's leads are not big, but they are persistent, as Sunil likes to point out regularly. I really do think it is important for the Conservative Party to address the matter urgently if it wants to hold on to power.
To me, that means removing Johnson. I'd like to see that principally for the good of the country. He's a bad PM; it's as simple as that. As a left-leaning poster I'd be bound to think that way too, although the irony is that a different leader would very likely restore Conservative fortunes in good time for the GE.
As one of our most eminent Conservative posters I can understand it might be awkward for you to acknowledge that but I suspect that in your Eping redoubt these thoughts are quietly acknowledged.
If you guys are going to change the boss, I think you need to do it fairly quickly. I'd say you have the summer. Autumn would probably too late. On balance though, I suspect it won't happen, but I'm not betting on it, either way.
Where is the polling evidence however a Hunt or Sunak or Wallace or Truss or Raab or Patel led Tories would lead Starmer Labour? Without it, there will be no change and Boris stays
There is none, but then there was no such evidence for Starmer when he stood for Labour leader in the corresponding contest.
I'd also suggest that most if not all of those names would make a better PM, and that kind of matters in itself.
Your right of course. You don't need the replacement evidence to drop a leader if there is evidence he is a dud. The only purpose of the evidence about his replacement is to find someone better. I agree most would be better, but not Patel or Raab.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
There is one piece of rampant stupidity above all others. Covid forced society to undergo 10 years of progress in a few months. As a nation we suffer structurally in many areas - poor infrastructure that we seem unable to build and fix, dense pockets of unemployment, a lack of childcare never mind at a price people can afford.
Technology allows us to fix all of that by bringing jobs to people as opposed to the expense of moving people to the jobs. WFH and Hybrid working is a new dawn in our economy. Instead of companies needing the expense of large offices and physical infrastructure they can make much of this virtual - shifting jobs to wherever people are.
Yet instead of leaping on this - a wonderful leap in potential economic performance - Bonzo instead remains in thrall to his property developer patrons and donors. Who want to protect asset prices of their property which so often we allow to be held in off-shore tax havens. It just demonstrates the absolute lack of a clue this lot have about anything.
A few more of you big brains have arisen from slumber so - cummon - can I have responses to my post early this morning:
If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP, which of these scenarios would play out?:
1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP
or
2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition
Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.
Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.
3) Labour rules as a minority government. Refuses to offer a Coalition. It introduces things the SNP like. A referendum in 4 years time. And things the LD's like. PR for Councils and possibly HoL? The latter would be a multi year project. And nowt else radical. They are able to command a solid majority in practice. Meanwhile. The Conservative Party has to confront its ideological incoherence and has a difficult debate about what the heck it is for. Then Labour goes to the country after two years. It's the Wilson playbook. They need to win first of course. And a lot depends on the numbers of course.
This is only possible if LP wins most seats (but no majority).
What if CP win most seats but no majority and the only majority that can be found is LP/LD/SNP?
Is it? It's perfectly possible to rule as the second largest Party provided you can pass a Queen's Speech. Although the media and Tories would kick up a stink.
Wouldn't get much cympathy in Scotland after what the Tories have been doing with Labour in local government (which is, like the suggestion aboive for Westminster, perfectly within the rules, though quite against the appearance of Mr Sarwar's sleekitly worded promise before the election).
Ashfield is a bit sui generis with a strong Zadrozny performance there last time, bit Bassetlaw, and particularly Dudley North aren't really marginal. Bassetlaw is seat 232 and Dudley North 155 for the Tories. To my mind everything else going points to massive trouble for the Tories, Labour won't need the SNP if its as bad as this for the blues. Straight Lib Lab deal to have a commanding majority
Yes, right now that's probably where we're heading.
I agree with Fishing and CR that mid-term polls hold little value as a guide 2+ years out.
However, Tory MPs will take note of them - saving their own skins and saving the Tory brand in general may do for Johnson rather than the Partygate stuff itself.
Yes, the relationship between Johnson and the Conservative Party has become purely transactional (was it ever anything else?). If many Conservative MPs think (and polls are really the best available indicator) he's got the best shot at leading them to victory, they'll keep him. If they don't, they won't. Sentiment or consideration of any wider interest does not enter into it.
A few more of you big brains have arisen from slumber so - cummon - can I have responses to my post early this morning:
If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP, which of these scenarios would play out?:
1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP
or
2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition
Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.
Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.
3) Labour rules as a minority government. Refuses to offer a Coalition. It introduces things the SNP like. A referendum in 4 years time. And things the LD's like. PR for Councils and possibly HoL? The latter would be a multi year project. And nowt else radical. They are able to command a solid majority in practice. Meanwhile. The Conservative Party has to confront its ideological incoherence and has a difficult debate about what the heck it is for. Then Labour goes to the country after two years. It's the Wilson playbook. They need to win first of course. And a lot depends on the numbers of course.
This is only possible if LP wins most seats (but no majority).
What if CP win most seats but no majority and the only majority that can be found is LP/LD/SNP?
Is it? It's perfectly possible to rule as the second largest Party provided you can pass a Queen's Speech. Although the media and Tories would kick up a stink.
Surely in that scenario it would be the CP which runs as a minority government? I know that would be short-lived.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Our current leaflet (featuring a cartoon by Marf, who many will remember) focus on "Do you really want another SEVEN YEARS of this?" - on the basis of the Tories winning re-election in two years' time.
What we have seen over the last 40 odd years is that changes of government in this country are rare and difficult to achieve. Your question is pertinent. For all Boris's failings and failures Labour are a long way from sealing the deal.
For all I have no truck with the conservatives I think the labour minded on here are counting their chickens a little too soon.
1) Over the last few decades labour have won when the country is optimistic about the future. That is not the current state nor is it likely to be at the time of the next election and I do not expect any party to have actual answers to the mess that will work and I think the old feeling that conservatives will be more fiscally sound still lurks enough to give a small tory majority.
2) Labour minded people are busy scaring the horses to an alarming extent. We have probably the most left wing governement in most peoples living memory in terms of financial aid. The labour minded people are constantly labelling it a far right government which it clearly isn't so the question in a lot of peoples minds is going to be if you are claiming this government splashing cash left right and centre is far right and you say we need to move left that is one hell of a way to the left of centre.
Erm ... as Mike points out this only polled Con-Lab marginals.
It didn't poll all those places in the south where you are now about to lose your blue wall to the LibDems: see Bob Neil's article about what's happening in his constituency of Bromley.
Nor did it look at Scotland and Wales.
Cling to your desperate signs HY if you like but you are disappearing down a rabbit hole of self-delusion.
The advance of the LDs is indeed a very worrying sign for the Conservative Party and its electoral prospects. I see they were up to 14% in one poll, and they seem pretty bullish about Tiverton.
Btw, Hyufd fights on the front line. You can't afford self-delusion there.
Surely the front line is people like HYUFD, but who live and operate in the marginal constituencies being discussed?
As much as the South is slowly trending away from the Tories due to the increasing housing problems there, I would not consider Epping Forest with its 22,173 vote majority remotely on the 'front line'
We Conservatives in Epping Forest will be fine regardless yes, we were Tory even in 1997 and 2001 and 2005 and Dame Eleanor got over 60% in 2019 and the Tories still have a majority on the council.
Housing problems and lack of home owners is also more a London problem. If anything it is building too much on the greenbelt which the LDs scaremonger about locally here
If they are like you there are NO Conservatives in Epping Forest. On what planet can you possibly call yourself a conservative? That you don't get this is profoundly funny. The party is dying all around you but like Putin you puff your chest out and say "what cancer".
Here's an interesting thing. There is a looming teacher recruitment shortage. The pay and conditions are woeful compared to the competition. And many experienced ones are quitting. In addition. There's a huge demographic bubble about to hit Secondary School. Many more teachers are needed just to keep up with demand.
Did we cover this at PMQs last Wednesday? Boris has a new slogan.
In answer to Keir Starmer: We are going to put our arms around the people of this country...
In answer to Andy McDonald: we will get through it very well by putting our arms around people...
In answer to Christian Wakeford: continue to put our arms around the people of this country...
"we will keep working to strengthen the protective ring that we have cast around all our care homes"
As usual, the journalist in him manages to come up with a good slogan, but as usual the public will find it is an empty promise sometime next winter.
A university friend of mine ended up as a journalist and commentator on several very reputable publications. He once commented to me that the nature of journalism was that you could and would very often end up being very wrong within a few weeks but it didn't matter - you just carried on writing.
Doesn't work so well when you have to run the country, does it?
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
Not really. Thatcher had the Falklands. Major had the gulf war and ERM debacle. Blair had 9/11 and the dot com bubble. Brown had global financial collapse. May had the 2016 aftermath,
Only Cameron had it relatively easy, but he contrived to shoot himself in the foot.
Falklands and the Gulf War were serious and comparable to the war with Ukraine, but that still makes Boris's first couple of years rather uniquely serious in having Covid and War to deal with.
ERM and 9/11 were in the PM's respective second terms after they'd already won re-election. The fact you're grasping for things they dealt with in their second terms shows just how manic this first term has been, we do live in "interesting times".
I don't think you can count the 2016 aftermath for May as that wasn't an event to occur after she was elected, it was what she was elected to deal with. Similarly, you must say the same about Boris for Brexit.
So the only one that leaves comparable is possibly Brown, though again that was one event (economic) rather than multiple (plague and war and economy).
The global financial crisis, the Covid pandemic and 9/11 were the biggest challenges.
The only thing that matters at the next election is that Johnson’s Tories lose power. The Conservative party as it is currently led and operates presents a clear and present threat to democracy and the rule of law, and must be stopped. It’s that simple. Hopefully, some time in opposition will allow for a period of reflection, shame and reconstitution.
By definition, the if there’s an election, then that will be democracy.
I suppose one could argue the scrapping of the fixed term parliaments act was anti-democractic as it bought the government another six months. But if we go beyond may 2024, then I think it’s safe to say the Tories are done.
Elections are necessary, but insufficient to qualify a democracy. If a government uses its power to bend the law or ministerial code so the rules do not apply to it, we do have a major problem. We saw that in the US in Jan 2021.
Oh cut the crap.
The changes to the Ministerial Code are codifying in practice what has long already happened anyway, and were changes recommended by the Standards Committee, which I believe has amongst its members such well known Tory stooges as *checks notes* Dame Margaret Beckett.
In the aftermath of the Patterson scandal the PM promised to implement whatever changes were recommended by the Committee, after that was demanded by MPs across the House. Now that he's done so, you're complaining about it.
There's plenty of serious stuff to complain about the PM for, without resorting to artificial synthetic outrage.
Oh cut the crap. The PM is currently under investigation for repeated personal breeches of the ministerial code. The idea that now is the apt time for him personally to rewrite the code so that his breeches are suddenly acceptable is straight out of North Korea. And everyone can see it.
Its like being charged with burglary, then rewriting the law on remand so that when you come to trial your crimes are now legal...
A few more of you big brains have arisen from slumber so - cummon - can I have responses to my post early this morning:
If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP, which of these scenarios would play out?:
1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP
or
2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition
Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.
Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.
3) Labour rules as a minority government. Refuses to offer a Coalition. It introduces things the SNP like. A referendum in 4 years time. And things the LD's like. PR for Councils and possibly HoL? The latter would be a multi year project. And nowt else radical. They are able to command a solid majority in practice. Meanwhile. The Conservative Party has to confront its ideological incoherence and has a difficult debate about what the heck it is for. Then Labour goes to the country after two years. It's the Wilson playbook. They need to win first of course. And a lot depends on the numbers of course.
This is only possible if LP wins most seats (but no majority).
What if CP win most seats but no majority and the only majority that can be found is LP/LD/SNP?
Is it? It's perfectly possible to rule as the second largest Party provided you can pass a Queen's Speech. Although the media and Tories would kick up a stink.
Wouldn't get much cympathy in Scotland after what the Tories have been doing with Labour in local government (which is, like the suggestion aboive for Westminster, perfectly within the rules, though quite against the appearance of Mr Sarwar's sleekitly worded promise before the election).
Yes, Edinburgh looks very weird in this context. 13 councillors forming a minority administration, and even then they could only get 11 of those Labour councillors to support it. I'd be shocked if it goes the distance.
I agree with Fishing and CR that mid-term polls hold little value as a guide 2+ years out.
However, Tory MPs will take note of them - saving their own skins and saving the Tory brand in general may do for Johnson rather than the Partygate stuff itself.
Yes, the relationship between Johnson and the Conservative Party has become purely transactional (was it ever anything else?). If many Conservative MPs think (and polls are really the best available indicator) he's got the best shot at leading them to victory, they'll keep him. If they don't, they won't. Sentiment or consideration of any wider interest does not enter into it.
Really Nick? I am sure that is true of many but I would like to think some are principled.
I agree with Fishing and CR that mid-term polls hold little value as a guide 2+ years out.
However, Tory MPs will take note of them - saving their own skins and saving the Tory brand in general may do for Johnson rather than the Partygate stuff itself.
Yes, the relationship between Johnson and the Conservative Party has become purely transactional (was it ever anything else?). If many Conservative MPs think (and polls are really the best available indicator) he's got the best shot at leading them to victory, they'll keep him. If they don't, they won't. Sentiment or consideration of any wider interest does not enter into it.
Personal interest surely. MPs will judge their own interest. If they think Boris will go, they won’t mind attacking him. If they think he will stay, they will keep quiet,
The only thing that matters at the next election is that Johnson’s Tories lose power. The Conservative party as it is currently led and operates presents a clear and present threat to democracy and the rule of law, and must be stopped. It’s that simple. Hopefully, some time in opposition will allow for a period of reflection, shame and reconstitution.
By definition, the if there’s an election, then that will be democracy.
I suppose one could argue the scrapping of the fixed term parliaments act was anti-democractic as it bought the government another six months. But if we go beyond may 2024, then I think it’s safe to say the Tories are done.
Elections are necessary, but insufficient to qualify a democracy. If a government uses its power to bend the law or ministerial code so the rules do not apply to it, we do have a major problem. We saw that in the US in Jan 2021.
Oh cut the crap.
The changes to the Ministerial Code are codifying in practice what has long already happened anyway, and were changes recommended by the Standards Committee, which I believe has amongst its members such well known Tory stooges as *checks notes* Dame Margaret Beckett.
In the aftermath of the Patterson scandal the PM promised to implement whatever changes were recommended by the Committee, after that was demanded by MPs across the House. Now that he's done so, you're complaining about it.
There's plenty of serious stuff to complain about the PM for, without resorting to artificial synthetic outrage.
Oh cut the crap. The PM is currently under investigation for repeated personal breeches of the ministerial code. The idea that now is the apt time for him personally to rewrite the code so that his breeches are suddenly acceptable is straight out of North Korea. And everyone can see it.
Its like being charged with burglary, then rewriting the law on remand so that when you come to trial your crimes are now legal...
Breaches surely, unless you mean that his breeches not being acceptable also has more than a little to do with it.
I agree with Fishing and CR that mid-term polls hold little value as a guide 2+ years out.
However, Tory MPs will take note of them - saving their own skins and saving the Tory brand in general may do for Johnson rather than the Partygate stuff itself.
Yes, the relationship between Johnson and the Conservative Party has become purely transactional (was it ever anything else?). If many Conservative MPs think (and polls are really the best available indicator) he's got the best shot at leading them to victory, they'll keep him. If they don't, they won't. Sentiment or consideration of any wider interest does not enter into it.
Really Nick? I am sure that is true of many but I would like to think some are principled.
Yes, a spell in opposition for them would probably be in everyone’s interest.
I don't think that is in Mr Johnson's plans at all. I am sure unilaterally changing the terms of the Ministerial Code is very tip of the self-preservation iceberg. I haven't worked out his plan of action yet, but I have no doubt that he is way ahead of me.
Yes, Edinburgh looks very weird in this context. 13 councillors forming a minority administration, and even then they could only get 11 of those Labour councillors to support it. I'd be shocked if it goes the distance.
Even if it doesn't last, the short term consternation from the zoomers has been hugely entertaining
A few more of you big brains have arisen from slumber so - cummon - can I have responses to my post early this morning:
If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP, which of these scenarios would play out?:
1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP
or
2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition
Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.
Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.
3) Labour rules as a minority government. Refuses to offer a Coalition. It introduces things the SNP like. A referendum in 4 years time. And things the LD's like. PR for Councils and possibly HoL? The latter would be a multi year project. And nowt else radical. They are able to command a solid majority in practice. Meanwhile. The Conservative Party has to confront its ideological incoherence and has a difficult debate about what the heck it is for. Then Labour goes to the country after two years. It's the Wilson playbook. They need to win first of course. And a lot depends on the numbers of course.
This is only possible if LP wins most seats (but no majority).
What if CP win most seats but no majority and the only majority that can be found is LP/LD/SNP?
Is it? It's perfectly possible to rule as the second largest Party provided you can pass a Queen's Speech. Although the media and Tories would kick up a stink.
Wouldn't get much cympathy in Scotland after what the Tories have been doing with Labour in local government (which is, like the suggestion aboive for Westminster, perfectly within the rules, though quite against the appearance of Mr Sarwar's sleekitly worded promise before the election).
Yes, Edinburgh looks very weird in this context. 13 councillors forming a minority administration, and even then they could only get 11 of those Labour councillors to support it. I'd be shocked if it goes the distance.
Indeed, some in Slab are getting stroppy about it - there was that MSP tweeting her indignation the other day. OTOH it may just be all for show and they are only pretending to be cross so as not to upset their voters. Oh dear, I really am getting cynical in my old age.
My first take on the govt’s statement on the ministerial code revisions and role of adviser on it, is it contains some wrongheaded constitutional thinking that reveals a worrying trend.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Whilst there is no real coherence to what this government is doing, there is no alternative plan outlined by Labour. To an extent, I understand why as the Tories steal Labour policies such as the windfall tax*, so a need to keep things under wraps. I just hope something is going on under cover.
*actually first mooted by the LibDems, I believe, not that I particularly support it.
The windfall tax is a terrible idea. It damages our reputation as a place that is suitable for investment and it does it for what is effectively spare change. The reality is that the incredibly high prices for fuel have already given the government a windfall of tax through both VAT and CT for those companies lucky enough to gain from the prices. They really didn't need more to focus on those who needed focused on, namely those on UC. To further damage our reputation as an economic safe haven to increase the level of bribes to parts of the electorate the government need was very poor economics and not even particularly smart politics.
Taking your point the fact that this stupidity is what Labour were coming up with as an alternative to the government policy (now abandoned) does not inspire optimism.
why would any business invest or investors invest in business if governments have the full power to take what they like when they like? This government is not conservative , its not competent (the deficit and debt is out of control as is inflation) , its hypocritical (on partygate) and its arrogant (BJ and Sunak not resigning)
Eppur si muove. It is of course notorious that upstream oil and gas companies have a rigid rule of only operating in mature first world democracies after rigorous scrutiny of their fiscal policies.
If they can afford Deepwater Horizon they can afford this. They can take it out of dividend distributions, and speaking as someone with a reasonable exposure to RDS and BP that's a form of wealth redistribution I am relaxed about in current circs
Plus you miss the cosmetic intention of the thing: it is not primarily intended to raise money, it's meant to look as if it is raising money as a figleaf for the fact that the government is primarily *borrowing* in order to spaff.
Yes, Edinburgh looks very weird in this context. 13 councillors forming a minority administration, and even then they could only get 11 of those Labour councillors to support it. I'd be shocked if it goes the distance.
Even if it doesn't last, the short term consternation from the zoomers has been hugely entertaining
All part of the game, like the songs on the terraces. It's Mr Sarwar's promise of no coalitions that has been a particular issue this time round, though, not entirely helped by its arguably intentionally deceptive wording. This is going to be interesting, especially after the Aberdeen fiasco in which he reversed Mr Leonard's policy - and then he seemed to reverse ferret and accept it after all.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
Not really. Thatcher had the Falklands. Major had the gulf war and ERM debacle. Blair had 9/11 and the dot com bubble. Brown had global financial collapse. May had the 2016 aftermath,
Only Cameron had it relatively easy, but he contrived to shoot himself in the foot.
Falklands and the Gulf War were serious and comparable to the war with Ukraine, but that still makes Boris's first couple of years rather uniquely serious in having Covid and War to deal with.
ERM and 9/11 were in the PM's respective second terms after they'd already won re-election. The fact you're grasping for things they dealt with in their second terms shows just how manic this first term has been, we do live in "interesting times".
I don't think you can count the 2016 aftermath for May as that wasn't an event to occur after she was elected, it was what she was elected to deal with. Similarly, you must say the same about Boris for Brexit.
So the only one that leaves comparable is possibly Brown, though again that was one event (economic) rather than multiple (plague and war and economy).
The global financial crisis, the Covid pandemic and 9/11 were the biggest challenges.
Was 9/11 a major structural change? I know it certainly was a psychological inflection, and it affected things like foreign policy, airline security, and it lead to an uptick in anti-Muslim bigotry, but do we exaggerate its importance?
If 54 letters do go in and in the resulting VOC 184 (say) Tory MPs vote against Johnson one wonders why 130 of them lacked confidence in their leader but didn't bother brandishing their quills.
I agree with Fishing and CR that mid-term polls hold little value as a guide 2+ years out.
However, Tory MPs will take note of them - saving their own skins and saving the Tory brand in general may do for Johnson rather than the Partygate stuff itself.
Yes, the relationship between Johnson and the Conservative Party has become purely transactional (was it ever anything else?). If many Conservative MPs think (and polls are really the best available indicator) he's got the best shot at leading them to victory, they'll keep him. If they don't, they won't. Sentiment or consideration of any wider interest does not enter into it.
Personal interest surely. MPs will judge their own interest. If they think Boris will go, they won’t mind attacking him. If they think he will stay, they will keep quiet,
That's why ejecting Johnson will mean a movement en masse and a batch of letters.
A few more of you big brains have arisen from slumber so - cummon - can I have responses to my post early this morning:
If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP, which of these scenarios would play out?:
1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP
or
2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition
Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.
Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.
3) Labour rules as a minority government. Refuses to offer a Coalition. It introduces things the SNP like. A referendum in 4 years time. And things the LD's like. PR for Councils and possibly HoL? The latter would be a multi year project. And nowt else radical. They are able to command a solid majority in practice. Meanwhile. The Conservative Party has to confront its ideological incoherence and has a difficult debate about what the heck it is for. Then Labour goes to the country after two years. It's the Wilson playbook. They need to win first of course. And a lot depends on the numbers of course.
This is only possible if LP wins most seats (but no majority).
What if CP win most seats but no majority and the only majority that can be found is LP/LD/SNP?
Is it? It's perfectly possible to rule as the second largest Party provided you can pass a Queen's Speech. Although the media and Tories would kick up a stink.
Surely in that scenario it would be the CP which runs as a minority government? I know that would be short-lived.
No. Because unless they had the numbers with the DUP they'd be unlikely to pass a Queen's Speech. That's what makes you the government. Not a headcount or popular vote count.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
Not really. Thatcher had the Falklands. Major had the gulf war and ERM debacle. Blair had 9/11 and the dot com bubble. Brown had global financial collapse. May had the 2016 aftermath,
Only Cameron had it relatively easy, but he contrived to shoot himself in the foot.
Falklands and the Gulf War were serious and comparable to the war with Ukraine, but that still makes Boris's first couple of years rather uniquely serious in having Covid and War to deal with.
ERM and 9/11 were in the PM's respective second terms after they'd already won re-election. The fact you're grasping for things they dealt with in their second terms shows just how manic this first term has been, we do live in "interesting times".
I don't think you can count the 2016 aftermath for May as that wasn't an event to occur after she was elected, it was what she was elected to deal with. Similarly, you must say the same about Boris for Brexit.
So the only one that leaves comparable is possibly Brown, though again that was one event (economic) rather than multiple (plague and war and economy).
The global financial crisis, the Covid pandemic and 9/11 were the biggest challenges.
Was 9/11 a major structural change? I know it certainly was a psychological inflection, and it affected things like foreign policy, airline security, and it lead to an uptick in anti-Muslim bigotry, but do we exaggerate its importance?
Yes, 9/11 was a major structural change and set the tone for C21. No 9/11, no Iraq, no Brexit, no Trump, possibly no financial crash.
I agree with Fishing and CR that mid-term polls hold little value as a guide 2+ years out.
However, Tory MPs will take note of them - saving their own skins and saving the Tory brand in general may do for Johnson rather than the Partygate stuff itself.
Yes, the relationship between Johnson and the Conservative Party has become purely transactional (was it ever anything else?). If many Conservative MPs think (and polls are really the best available indicator) he's got the best shot at leading them to victory, they'll keep him. If they don't, they won't. Sentiment or consideration of any wider interest does not enter into it.
Unfair. I think about 1 in 25 of MPs, on both sides of the house, are motivated primarily by principle.
Yes, Edinburgh looks very weird in this context. 13 councillors forming a minority administration, and even then they could only get 11 of those Labour councillors to support it. I'd be shocked if it goes the distance.
Even if it doesn't last, the short term consternation from the zoomers has been hugely entertaining
So risking a period of political instability is worth it because it pwns the Libs Nats? I really despise this way of thinking, this sado-populism.
I agree with Fishing and CR that mid-term polls hold little value as a guide 2+ years out.
However, Tory MPs will take note of them - saving their own skins and saving the Tory brand in general may do for Johnson rather than the Partygate stuff itself.
Yes, the relationship between Johnson and the Conservative Party has become purely transactional (was it ever anything else?). If many Conservative MPs think (and polls are really the best available indicator) he's got the best shot at leading them to victory, they'll keep him. If they don't, they won't. Sentiment or consideration of any wider interest does not enter into it.
Really Nick? I am sure that is true of many but I would like to think some are principled.
Yes, I phrased it badly. The keyword there is "many". I absolutely think there are also many principled Conservative MPs, and probabhly quite a few who feel conflicted between principle and pragmatism.
If 54 letters do go in and in the resulting VOC 184 (say) Tory MPs vote against Johnson one wonders why 130 of them lacked confidence in their leader but didn't bother brandishing their quills.
Indeed. There is no point in a vote unless it is won.
Is the confidence vote public or by secret ballot?
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
Not really. Thatcher had the Falklands. Major had the gulf war and ERM debacle. Blair had 9/11 and the dot com bubble. Brown had global financial collapse. May had the 2016 aftermath,
Only Cameron had it relatively easy, but he contrived to shoot himself in the foot.
Falklands and the Gulf War were serious and comparable to the war with Ukraine, but that still makes Boris's first couple of years rather uniquely serious in having Covid and War to deal with.
ERM and 9/11 were in the PM's respective second terms after they'd already won re-election. The fact you're grasping for things they dealt with in their second terms shows just how manic this first term has been, we do live in "interesting times".
I don't think you can count the 2016 aftermath for May as that wasn't an event to occur after she was elected, it was what she was elected to deal with. Similarly, you must say the same about Boris for Brexit.
So the only one that leaves comparable is possibly Brown, though again that was one event (economic) rather than multiple (plague and war and economy).
The global financial crisis, the Covid pandemic and 9/11 were the biggest challenges.
Was 9/11 a major structural change? I know it certainly was a psychological inflection, and it affected things like foreign policy, airline security, and it lead to an uptick in anti-Muslim bigotry, but do we exaggerate its importance?
Yes, 9/11 was a major structural change and set the tone for C21. No 9/11, no Brexit, no Trump, possibly no financial crash.
Can you draw out the way you think 9/11 lead to the GFC? I don't see it.
So the question is, has Boris knowingly misled Parliament? The Privileges Committee is investigating this in relation to partygate but given the ONS has three times reprimanded the Prime Minister for false claims on employment, one would think that by the third time Boris ought to have known he was fibbing. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-issued-third-warning-26938959
I'm beginning to relax about it as I feel like we're now in the political equivalent of 1995. The writing is on the wall.
And as someone posted the other day, I hope the tories DO cling on to the wicked fool in No. 10 because he deserves to receive the public evisceration he will get at the General Election.
As much as you might wish to see the Conservative Party blown completely out of the water, I would caution anyone against wishing and praying for 1997 redux. The last thing we need is yet another hubristic, out-of-control administration with a stonking Parliamentary majority, blundering from one mistake to the next with a hollowed out and chaotic rump opposition incapable of doing anything to hold it to account…
That might be Starmer’s strongest feature - that he is not someone likely to inspire such a victory ?
Is there any precedent for help with cost of living crises, or has Covid reset expectations of government goodies in times of crisis? All I remember from the Seventies is being told to tighten our belts, turn off the heating, use leftovers to make tasty and nourishing turnip fritters etc.
If 54 letters do go in and in the resulting VOC 184 (say) Tory MPs vote against Johnson one wonders why 130 of them lacked confidence in their leader but didn't bother brandishing their quills.
Indeed. There is no point in a vote unless it is won.
Is the confidence vote public or by secret ballot?
The only thing that matters at the next election is that Johnson’s Tories lose power. The Conservative party as it is currently led and operates presents a clear and present threat to democracy and the rule of law, and must be stopped. It’s that simple. Hopefully, some time in opposition will allow for a period of reflection, shame and reconstitution.
By definition, the if there’s an election, then that will be democracy.
I suppose one could argue the scrapping of the fixed term parliaments act was anti-democractic as it bought the government another six months. But if we go beyond may 2024, then I think it’s safe to say the Tories are done.
Elections are necessary, but insufficient to qualify a democracy. If a government uses its power to bend the law or ministerial code so the rules do not apply to it, we do have a major problem. We saw that in the US in Jan 2021.
Oh cut the crap.
The changes to the Ministerial Code are codifying in practice what has long already happened anyway, and were changes recommended by the Standards Committee, which I believe has amongst its members such well known Tory stooges as *checks notes* Dame Margaret Beckett.
In the aftermath of the Patterson scandal the PM promised to implement whatever changes were recommended by the Committee, after that was demanded by MPs across the House. Now that he's done so, you're complaining about it.
There's plenty of serious stuff to complain about the PM for, without resorting to artificial synthetic outrage.
Oh cut the crap. The PM is currently under investigation for repeated personal breeches of the ministerial code. The idea that now is the apt time for him personally to rewrite the code so that his breeches are suddenly acceptable is straight out of North Korea. And everyone can see it.
Its like being charged with burglary, then rewriting the law on remand so that when you come to trial your crimes are now legal...
Breaches surely, unless you mean that his breeches not being acceptable also has more than a little to do with it.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
Not really. Thatcher had the Falklands. Major had the gulf war and ERM debacle. Blair had 9/11 and the dot com bubble. Brown had global financial collapse. May had the 2016 aftermath,
Only Cameron had it relatively easy, but he contrived to shoot himself in the foot.
Falklands and the Gulf War were serious and comparable to the war with Ukraine, but that still makes Boris's first couple of years rather uniquely serious in having Covid and War to deal with.
ERM and 9/11 were in the PM's respective second terms after they'd already won re-election. The fact you're grasping for things they dealt with in their second terms shows just how manic this first term has been, we do live in "interesting times".
I don't think you can count the 2016 aftermath for May as that wasn't an event to occur after she was elected, it was what she was elected to deal with. Similarly, you must say the same about Boris for Brexit.
So the only one that leaves comparable is possibly Brown, though again that was one event (economic) rather than multiple (plague and war and economy).
The global financial crisis, the Covid pandemic and 9/11 were the biggest challenges.
Was 9/11 a major structural change? I know it certainly was a psychological inflection, and it affected things like foreign policy, airline security, and it lead to an uptick in anti-Muslim bigotry, but do we exaggerate its importance?
Yes, 9/11 was a major structural change and set the tone for C21. No 9/11, no Brexit, no Trump, possibly no financial crash.
Can you draw out the way you think 9/11 lead to the GFC? I don't see it.
Western governments were hugely distracted 2001-2007. If 9/11 had not happened governments would not have had to stimulate the economy as much in the early 2000s and might have had more time to spot and deal with the danger.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
Not really. Thatcher had the Falklands. Major had the gulf war and ERM debacle. Blair had 9/11 and the dot com bubble. Brown had global financial collapse. May had the 2016 aftermath,
Only Cameron had it relatively easy, but he contrived to shoot himself in the foot.
Falklands and the Gulf War were serious and comparable to the war with Ukraine, but that still makes Boris's first couple of years rather uniquely serious in having Covid and War to deal with.
ERM and 9/11 were in the PM's respective second terms after they'd already won re-election. The fact you're grasping for things they dealt with in their second terms shows just how manic this first term has been, we do live in "interesting times".
I don't think you can count the 2016 aftermath for May as that wasn't an event to occur after she was elected, it was what she was elected to deal with. Similarly, you must say the same about Boris for Brexit.
So the only one that leaves comparable is possibly Brown, though again that was one event (economic) rather than multiple (plague and war and economy).
The global financial crisis, the Covid pandemic and 9/11 were the biggest challenges.
Was 9/11 a major structural change? I know it certainly was a psychological inflection, and it affected things like foreign policy, airline security, and it lead to an uptick in anti-Muslim bigotry, but do we exaggerate its importance?
Yes, 9/11 was a major structural change and set the tone for C21. No 9/11, no Iraq, no Brexit, no Trump, possibly no financial crash.
There would still have been a GFC because the seeds of that were sown under Clinton.
It might have been slightly later or somewhat less severe as there would have been less need for unfunded borrowing on the part of America and Britain to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but the sub-prime crisis was going to occur at some point.
BoJo's talent is to project an image successfully. An amateur blundering around, but at heart someone who wants the best for the country. Harold Wilson projected a cuddly image. Margaret Thatcher a competent, functional image.
All successful ones do. People who take politics seriously are annoyed by this. Some feel that it somehow shouldn't be allowed. But taking politics seriously doesn't mean you're better at it. We have people allowed out on their own who believe North Korea is the route to go down. If only people could see what Kim, whoever he is now, is being seriously maligned.
For what it's worth, I have no time for Bojo, but he's good at what he does. It may feel like Frankie Howerd on a bad day, but I have only one vote.
Wilson took to a pipe, Bojo has a vaudeville routine, Corbyn is a Trotsky tribute act, Putin controls the media. Whichever stage act you prefer automatically gains credibility. There's no science to it. Political science is a great oxymoron.
Let it wash over you. Democracy is the important thing.
He has no interest whatsoever in what is best for the country, his only concern is what is best for Alexander Boris De Pfeffel Johnson. He may consider the two to be entwined, but that too is a mark of the man's arrogance.
I suspect such self belief goes with the territory for pretty well all " leaders of men" (and women). Mrs Thatcher (whom I detested) had a vision for the country, and she followed that vision unswervingly. Johnson has no vision past the next chocolate eclair or the next illicit shag. He just likes being King of the Castle, a position that showers him with both confectionery and nubile wenches.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
Yes, that is very fair. Almost any PM would have struggled with the last few years. I think the importance of Brexit is constantly overstated but there is also no question that the country has been deeply divided by it just as we in Scotland continue to be deeply divided by independence. Divided countries are never easy to govern but it needs a PM who can work hard at bringing people together and developing a sense of common purpose. Boris is almost the antithitis of this. He thrives on division, scorn and lying. It has undoubtedly aggravated the situation.
I agree Boris has been hit by extraordinary events since becoming PM, more extraordinary than any PM since Chamberlain . However that doesn't mean it should be a disadvantage. Boris doesn't get blamed for causing COVID and it is an opportunity to take credit for handling it. What it has done is suppressed all the potential Brexit disaster stories such that only Leon now keeps going on about it and for that he is lucky.
A few more of you big brains have arisen from slumber so - cummon - can I have responses to my post early this morning:
If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP, which of these scenarios would play out?:
1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP
or
2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition
Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.
Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.
3) Labour rules as a minority government. Refuses to offer a Coalition. It introduces things the SNP like. A referendum in 4 years time. And things the LD's like. PR for Councils and possibly HoL? The latter would be a multi year project. And nowt else radical. They are able to command a solid majority in practice. Meanwhile. The Conservative Party has to confront its ideological incoherence and has a difficult debate about what the heck it is for. Then Labour goes to the country after two years. It's the Wilson playbook. They need to win first of course. And a lot depends on the numbers of course.
This is only possible if LP wins most seats (but no majority).
What if CP win most seats but no majority and the only majority that can be found is LP/LD/SNP?
Is it? It's perfectly possible to rule as the second largest Party provided you can pass a Queen's Speech. Although the media and Tories would kick up a stink.
Surely in that scenario it would be the CP which runs as a minority government? I know that would be short-lived.
No. Because unless they had the numbers with the DUP they'd be unlikely to pass a Queen's Speech. That's what makes you the government. Not a headcount or popular vote count.
Right, but if LP have the numbers with LD/SNP, as Tories did with DUP, then aren't you going with 2) above? Isn't your number 3) the same as my number 2)?
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
Not really. Thatcher had the Falklands. Major had the gulf war and ERM debacle. Blair had 9/11 and the dot com bubble. Brown had global financial collapse. May had the 2016 aftermath,
Only Cameron had it relatively easy, but he contrived to shoot himself in the foot.
Falklands and the Gulf War were serious and comparable to the war with Ukraine, but that still makes Boris's first couple of years rather uniquely serious in having Covid and War to deal with.
ERM and 9/11 were in the PM's respective second terms after they'd already won re-election. The fact you're grasping for things they dealt with in their second terms shows just how manic this first term has been, we do live in "interesting times".
I don't think you can count the 2016 aftermath for May as that wasn't an event to occur after she was elected, it was what she was elected to deal with. Similarly, you must say the same about Boris for Brexit.
So the only one that leaves comparable is possibly Brown, though again that was one event (economic) rather than multiple (plague and war and economy).
The global financial crisis, the Covid pandemic and 9/11 were the biggest challenges.
Was 9/11 a major structural change? I know it certainly was a psychological inflection, and it affected things like foreign policy, airline security, and it lead to an uptick in anti-Muslim bigotry, but do we exaggerate its importance?
Yes, 9/11 was a major structural change and set the tone for C21. No 9/11, no Iraq, no Brexit, no Trump, possibly no financial crash.
There would still have been a GFC because the seeds of that were sown under Clinton.
It might have been slightly later or somewhat less severe as there would have been less need for unfunded borrowing on the part of America and Britain to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but the sub-prime crisis was going to occur at some point.
The seeds were sown before, but the dangers may have been dealt with if attention and political capital had not been spent elsewhere. I am still convinced that 9/11 significantly changed the course of the West in C21 and not for the better. Bin Laden achieved pretty much everything he set out to do.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Our current leaflet (featuring a cartoon by Marf, who many will remember) focus on "Do you really want another SEVEN YEARS of this?" - on the basis of the Tories winning re-election in two years' time.
What we have seen over the last 40 odd years is that changes of government in this country are rare and difficult to achieve. Your question is pertinent. For all Boris's failings and failures Labour are a long way from sealing the deal.
For all I have no truck with the conservatives I think the labour minded on here are counting their chickens a little too soon.
1) Over the last few decades labour have won when the country is optimistic about the future. That is not the current state nor is it likely to be at the time of the next election and I do not expect any party to have actual answers to the mess that will work and I think the old feeling that conservatives will be more fiscally sound still lurks enough to give a small tory majority.
2) Labour minded people are busy scaring the horses to an alarming extent. We have probably the most left wing governement in most peoples living memory in terms of financial aid. The labour minded people are constantly labelling it a far right government which it clearly isn't so the question in a lot of peoples minds is going to be if you are claiming this government splashing cash left right and centre is far right and you say we need to move left that is one hell of a way to the left of centre.
Good post. Plus the identity politics stuff of the more extreme in Labour's number.
"Is there any precedent for help with cost of living crises?"
It's totally new to me. I suppose it must be a younger generation, namby-pamby, mental health issue. Every time inflation goes over 2% , it will be start printing money or we'll be all be bigots.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
Not really. Thatcher had the Falklands. Major had the gulf war and ERM debacle. Blair had 9/11 and the dot com bubble. Brown had global financial collapse. May had the 2016 aftermath,
Only Cameron had it relatively easy, but he contrived to shoot himself in the foot.
Falklands and the Gulf War were serious and comparable to the war with Ukraine, but that still makes Boris's first couple of years rather uniquely serious in having Covid and War to deal with.
ERM and 9/11 were in the PM's respective second terms after they'd already won re-election. The fact you're grasping for things they dealt with in their second terms shows just how manic this first term has been, we do live in "interesting times".
I don't think you can count the 2016 aftermath for May as that wasn't an event to occur after she was elected, it was what she was elected to deal with. Similarly, you must say the same about Boris for Brexit.
So the only one that leaves comparable is possibly Brown, though again that was one event (economic) rather than multiple (plague and war and economy).
The global financial crisis, the Covid pandemic and 9/11 were the biggest challenges.
Was 9/11 a major structural change? I know it certainly was a psychological inflection, and it affected things like foreign policy, airline security, and it lead to an uptick in anti-Muslim bigotry, but do we exaggerate its importance?
Yes, 9/11 was a major structural change and set the tone for C21. No 9/11, no Brexit, no Trump, possibly no financial crash.
Can you draw out the way you think 9/11 lead to the GFC? I don't see it.
Western governments were hugely distracted 2001-2007. If 9/11 had not happened governments would not have had to stimulate the economy as much in the early 2000s and might have had more time to spot and deal with the danger.
It also provided a fresh boost to Western psychological hubris. Post-Berlin Wall, the economic system was self-evidently correct. And must not be tinkered with. Post 9-11, re-inforced that feeling. There was no room for a questioning of how our society was being run. Indeed, to do so would only give comfort to enemies out to destroy us.
Good article in the Atlantic explaining how small, rural, Republican states have power far beyond their numbers in the US system thanks to the filibuster, repeatedly stopping policies which have clear majority support such as gun control:
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
Not really. Thatcher had the Falklands. Major had the gulf war and ERM debacle. Blair had 9/11 and the dot com bubble. Brown had global financial collapse. May had the 2016 aftermath,
Only Cameron had it relatively easy, but he contrived to shoot himself in the foot.
Falklands and the Gulf War were serious and comparable to the war with Ukraine, but that still makes Boris's first couple of years rather uniquely serious in having Covid and War to deal with.
ERM and 9/11 were in the PM's respective second terms after they'd already won re-election. The fact you're grasping for things they dealt with in their second terms shows just how manic this first term has been, we do live in "interesting times".
I don't think you can count the 2016 aftermath for May as that wasn't an event to occur after she was elected, it was what she was elected to deal with. Similarly, you must say the same about Boris for Brexit.
So the only one that leaves comparable is possibly Brown, though again that was one event (economic) rather than multiple (plague and war and economy).
The global financial crisis, the Covid pandemic and 9/11 were the biggest challenges.
Was 9/11 a major structural change? I know it certainly was a psychological inflection, and it affected things like foreign policy, airline security, and it lead to an uptick in anti-Muslim bigotry, but do we exaggerate its importance?
Yes, 9/11 was a major structural change and set the tone for C21. No 9/11, no Brexit, no Trump, possibly no financial crash.
Can you draw out the way you think 9/11 lead to the GFC? I don't see it.
It didn't and it wasn't a difficulty for the PM anyway more a posturing opportunity.
https://twitter.com/ByMikeBaker/status/1530238057454047232 Student calls to 911: 12:03—whispered she's in room 112 12:10—said multiple dead 12:13—called again 12:16—says 8-9 students alive 12:19—student calls from room 111 12:21—3 shots heard on call 12:36—another call 12:43—asks for police 12:47—asks for police
https://twitter.com/pitgpitw1/status/1530239595459145728 "As horrible as what happened, it could have been worse. The reason it was not worse is because law enforcement officials did what they do . . . because of their quick response . . . they were able to save lives.”
https://twitter.com/CraigCaplan/status/1530255125020819456 Cornyn (R-TX) on Senate floor on his visit to Uvalde Wednesday:"During the briefing from law enforcement, 2 of the Uvalde police officers who responded to the shooting shared their harrowing experiences with us,& in the face of such unthinkable evil,their courage was unwavering."
One imagines the police milling about outside were caught up in groupthink. We should also remember that even in this country, police have concentrated on keeping rescuers out, such as at Manchester's Ariana Grande bombing. In both Texas and Manchester, there were existing plans that were not followed. It might be that in both countries, there should be a national plan that is more easily triggered and that might even include a Cummings-style national control centre, and flying in specially equipped police if time and geography allow. There is also the question of whether social media platforms can algorithmically identify threats in real time: perhaps not in this case but some shootings have been livestreamed.
While that might be true, it’s not the lesson I took from the accounts.
Such plans are the go to solution of those who want to preserve the status quo of easy access to assault weapons for all. Such ideas might make a marginal difference, but they’re effectively a distraction - the go to resort of every Republican administration - and do little or nothing to address the real problem.
The police response to such situations has been around forever. Here’s an account from two decades back.
https://twitter.com/danielmkim/status/1529687298094379009 I can't fucking sleep tonight. Kept thinking about one of my last calls as an EMT after reading about cops not willingly putting themselves in harm's way. August 2001. I pulled my bus up just outside the PD cordon at the site of a DV call.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
Not really. Thatcher had the Falklands. Major had the gulf war and ERM debacle. Blair had 9/11 and the dot com bubble. Brown had global financial collapse. May had the 2016 aftermath,
Only Cameron had it relatively easy, but he contrived to shoot himself in the foot.
Falklands and the Gulf War were serious and comparable to the war with Ukraine, but that still makes Boris's first couple of years rather uniquely serious in having Covid and War to deal with.
ERM and 9/11 were in the PM's respective second terms after they'd already won re-election. The fact you're grasping for things they dealt with in their second terms shows just how manic this first term has been, we do live in "interesting times".
I don't think you can count the 2016 aftermath for May as that wasn't an event to occur after she was elected, it was what she was elected to deal with. Similarly, you must say the same about Boris for Brexit.
So the only one that leaves comparable is possibly Brown, though again that was one event (economic) rather than multiple (plague and war and economy).
The global financial crisis, the Covid pandemic and 9/11 were the biggest challenges.
Was 9/11 a major structural change? I know it certainly was a psychological inflection, and it affected things like foreign policy, airline security, and it lead to an uptick in anti-Muslim bigotry, but do we exaggerate its importance?
Yes, 9/11 was a major structural change and set the tone for C21. No 9/11, no Brexit, no Trump, possibly no financial crash.
Can you draw out the way you think 9/11 lead to the GFC? I don't see it.
Western governments were hugely distracted 2001-2007. If 9/11 had not happened governments would not have had to stimulate the economy as much in the early 2000s and might have had more time to spot and deal with the danger.
It also provided a fresh boost to Western psychological hubris. Post-Berlin Wall, the economic system was self-evidently correct. And must not be tinkered with. Post 9-11, re-inforced that feeling. There was no room for a questioning of how our society was being run. Indeed, to do so would only give comfort to enemies out to destroy us.
Very good point. As we were dealing with our bruises, Putin was free to slowly metastasise in Russia.
A few more of you big brains have arisen from slumber so - cummon - can I have responses to my post early this morning:
If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP, which of these scenarios would play out?:
1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP
or
2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition
Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.
Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.
3) Labour rules as a minority government. Refuses to offer a Coalition. It introduces things the SNP like. A referendum in 4 years time. And things the LD's like. PR for Councils and possibly HoL? The latter would be a multi year project. And nowt else radical. They are able to command a solid majority in practice. Meanwhile. The Conservative Party has to confront its ideological incoherence and has a difficult debate about what the heck it is for. Then Labour goes to the country after two years. It's the Wilson playbook. They need to win first of course. And a lot depends on the numbers of course.
This is only possible if LP wins most seats (but no majority).
What if CP win most seats but no majority and the only majority that can be found is LP/LD/SNP?
Is it? It's perfectly possible to rule as the second largest Party provided you can pass a Queen's Speech. Although the media and Tories would kick up a stink.
Surely in that scenario it would be the CP which runs as a minority government? I know that would be short-lived.
No. Because unless they had the numbers with the DUP they'd be unlikely to pass a Queen's Speech. That's what makes you the government. Not a headcount or popular vote count.
Right, but if LP have the numbers with LD/SNP, as Tories did with DUP, then aren't you going with 2) above? Isn't your number 3) the same as my number 2)?
Yes. I guess so. The difference being, Labour doesn't offer the option of Coalition under my scenario. They have no constitutional need to. Nor any political imperative. A Queen's Speech with an Indyref some years in the future, and some kind of move towards PR wouldn't be voted down.
"Is there any precedent for help with cost of living crises?"
It's totally new to me. I suppose it must be a younger generation, namby-pamby, mental health issue. Every time inflation goes over 2% , it will be start printing money or we'll be all be bigots.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Don't know they are born, do they? In the 70s I was living on a small island in a lake of sulphuric acid...
But I don't see how it's working if it's not hurting. The one thing worse than a wage inflation spiral is a wage plus government help for hard working families inflation spiral
Yes, Edinburgh looks very weird in this context. 13 councillors forming a minority administration, and even then they could only get 11 of those Labour councillors to support it. I'd be shocked if it goes the distance.
Even if it doesn't last, the short term consternation from the zoomers has been hugely entertaining
All part of the game, like the songs on the terraces. It's Mr Sarwar's promise of no coalitions that has been a particular issue this time round, though, not entirely helped by its arguably intentionally deceptive wording. This is going to be interesting, especially after the Aberdeen fiasco in which he reversed Mr Leonard's policy - and then he seemed to reverse ferret and accept it after all.
Madness for Nat ‘zoomers’ to highlight SLab working with the SCons, no political benefit whatsoever.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
Not really. Thatcher had the Falklands. Major had the gulf war and ERM debacle. Blair had 9/11 and the dot com bubble. Brown had global financial collapse. May had the 2016 aftermath,
Only Cameron had it relatively easy, but he contrived to shoot himself in the foot.
Falklands and the Gulf War were serious and comparable to the war with Ukraine, but that still makes Boris's first couple of years rather uniquely serious in having Covid and War to deal with.
ERM and 9/11 were in the PM's respective second terms after they'd already won re-election. The fact you're grasping for things they dealt with in their second terms shows just how manic this first term has been, we do live in "interesting times".
I don't think you can count the 2016 aftermath for May as that wasn't an event to occur after she was elected, it was what she was elected to deal with. Similarly, you must say the same about Boris for Brexit.
So the only one that leaves comparable is possibly Brown, though again that was one event (economic) rather than multiple (plague and war and economy).
The global financial crisis, the Covid pandemic and 9/11 were the biggest challenges.
Was 9/11 a major structural change? I know it certainly was a psychological inflection, and it affected things like foreign policy, airline security, and it lead to an uptick in anti-Muslim bigotry, but do we exaggerate its importance?
Yes, 9/11 was a major structural change and set the tone for C21. No 9/11, no Iraq, no Brexit, no Trump, possibly no financial crash.
There would still have been a GFC because the seeds of that were sown under Clinton.
It might have been slightly later or somewhat less severe as there would have been less need for unfunded borrowing on the part of America and Britain to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but the sub-prime crisis was going to occur at some point.
The seeds were sown before, but the dangers may have been dealt with if attention and political capital had not been spent elsewhere. I am still convinced that 9/11 significantly changed the course of the West in C21 and not for the better. Bin Laden achieved pretty much everything he set out to do.
Hmmm. I think that's a very optimistic analysis. Between America's greed for housing, Brown's hubris, the ECB's obsession with trying to unify monetary policy, China's corruption, Japan's stagnation and Russia's chronic instability I think people would have found plenty of other reasons to bury their heads in the sand.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
Not really. Thatcher had the Falklands. Major had the gulf war and ERM debacle. Blair had 9/11 and the dot com bubble. Brown had global financial collapse. May had the 2016 aftermath,
Only Cameron had it relatively easy, but he contrived to shoot himself in the foot.
Falklands and the Gulf War were serious and comparable to the war with Ukraine, but that still makes Boris's first couple of years rather uniquely serious in having Covid and War to deal with.
ERM and 9/11 were in the PM's respective second terms after they'd already won re-election. The fact you're grasping for things they dealt with in their second terms shows just how manic this first term has been, we do live in "interesting times".
I don't think you can count the 2016 aftermath for May as that wasn't an event to occur after she was elected, it was what she was elected to deal with. Similarly, you must say the same about Boris for Brexit.
So the only one that leaves comparable is possibly Brown, though again that was one event (economic) rather than multiple (plague and war and economy).
The global financial crisis, the Covid pandemic and 9/11 were the biggest challenges.
Was 9/11 a major structural change? I know it certainly was a psychological inflection, and it affected things like foreign policy, airline security, and it lead to an uptick in anti-Muslim bigotry, but do we exaggerate its importance?
Yes, 9/11 was a major structural change and set the tone for C21. No 9/11, no Brexit, no Trump, possibly no financial crash.
Can you draw out the way you think 9/11 lead to the GFC? I don't see it.
Western governments were hugely distracted 2001-2007. If 9/11 had not happened governments would not have had to stimulate the economy as much in the early 2000s and might have had more time to spot and deal with the danger.
It also provided a fresh boost to Western psychological hubris. Post-Berlin Wall, the economic system was self-evidently correct. And must not be tinkered with. Post 9-11, re-inforced that feeling. There was no room for a questioning of how our society was being run. Indeed, to do so would only give comfort to enemies out to destroy us.
Very good point. As we were dealing with our bruises, Putin was free to slowly metastasise in Russia.
If 54 letters do go in and in the resulting VOC 184 (say) Tory MPs vote against Johnson one wonders why 130 of them lacked confidence in their leader but didn't bother brandishing their quills.
Bayesian innit? P/move against Johnson and P/move against Johnson given 54 letters are in are different questions. Cf idiotic claims that GE 2019 was a mandate for Brexit, rather than for Brexit given 2016 ref result
Just heard a clip of Trump reading out the names of the Uvalde victims at the NRA annual convention in Texas, a single toll of a bell between each name. I’m ashamed to say I’d forgotten the crass cheesiness of which he’s capable.
It’s just a matter of time before these people are demanding that school kids be armed.
I've got it - everyone is homeschooled or taught online, while schools are used as gun storage facilities.
Losing 85 out of 88 marginals still points to a hung parliament however. For a Labour majority, Labour should be ahead in all 88. Remember in 1997 Labour under Blair won 145 Tory seats and even in 2010 the Tories under Cameron gained 96 Labour seats.
Remember too in 2019 the Yougov MRP model underestimated the Tory seat total, predicting 339 rather than the 365 actually won
That cuts both ways. Yougov could be underestimating Labour gains and they might actually gain more than just 85, just as the Tories won more than 339. Errors can go in either direction and aren't locked to just one direction.
Plus if Labour are gaining 85 out of 88 marginals then they're probably winning some that aren't classed as marginals, just as they did in 1997.
Opinion polls at this stage of a Parliament are pretty much worthless junk, but that swings in both directions. The next election could see the Tories win another majority, probably reduced now if they did, or it could see a Labour majority. Or anything in-between.
Nothing is pre-determined.
A couple of years ago, it was pre determined. He fact that a Labour majority is discussed as possible is a remarkable shift. The interesting thing is that success breeds success, the more possible it seems the more likely it is to occur.
Nothing was ever predetermined. I said a couple of years ago that all options are possible from a Labour majority to an increased Tory majority and was laughed at for that, by people insisting neither option was possible.
Swings can always happen and they can always go in either direction, and as I said a couple of years ago if the swing is large enough to wipe out the majority then don't rule out it being large enough to actually create one for the other side.
I don't agree. I heard EXACTLY the same argument during John Major's 1992-7 Government. There was a genuine belief that he could pull off a surprise win again, like he did in 1992. There were those who refused to believe the opinion polls, who thought it was all mid-term blues, who believed it could be turned around and that 'all things were possible.'
It's astonishing to me that some people simply don't realise what's happening, fail to perceive the shift that has happened. When a seismic shift happens, it happens. I saw it in 1978-9 and again in 1992-7. The former is the really interesting one because Maggie did not win a huge majority (44) in May 1979: but the shift was sufficient.
December 2021 will come to be seen as a seismic shift. Your man was caught. The nation will not forget.
People are furious and hurt about partygate and no amount of dissing the topic by the Right on here is going to undo that. You will lose your majority unless you remove Johnson.
Of course, added to this is the economic and fiscal meltdown that we're entering.
I will wait a while longer before allowing myself your level of confidence. We may not have an election until January 2025, so there’s a lot that can still happen. Sunak made a very big play this week, providing significant help on energy bills. Pensions are due a major uplift next year.
The Tories have plenty of tools at their disposal - not least control of the electoral process. Don’t forget: they are making it harder to vote (a move that will affect non-Tory demographics disproportionately) and have ended the Electoral Commission’s independence. There is still time to do a lot more of the same. Control of the process gives a lot more control over the outcome, of course.
All that said, if the polls don’t move much after Sunak’s announcement that should set a few more Tory alarm bells ringing, especially if accompanied by two by-election defeats.
I would be surprised if Sunak moves the polls, i doubt there is a huge amount of gratitude out there for only being significantly worse off rather than catastrophically worse off. Arguably it is just an expensive way to highlight the problem that will be absorbed just like 5p off a litre of petrol
Meanwhile, the cost of living and inflation eats away at the lifestyle and savings of ever increasing numbers of us,
It might. One powerful factor in 2019 was the notion that Conservatives were somehow "on your side" whereas Labour was, although not hostile, more concerned about conditions in Palestine and Venezuela than in deepest, darkest Abingdon.
The question is whether, after the rebates, Conservatives can now say, we know times are hard but at least Rishi the government is on your side.
The public dont do gratitude. If they are turning against you not much helps, anything positive goes into the 'you're supposed to help us like that' pile.
I must confess in 2019 it seemed to me that the self indulgent stupidity of Labour putting Corbyn forward as PM for the second time had not only lost that election but the next one. At that time my expectation was that a worst case for the Tories was probably a 1992 victory the next time out.
I no longer think that which is a credit to the efforts of SKS and a reflection of the chaos Boris has unleashed on the party and the country. What does the current government stand for? It's certainly not economic stability, balanced accounts, a long term perspective on our problems, low taxes, an environment that promotes investment and training, I could go on all day.
I think, in fairness, they have had an extremely difficult hand to play with the economic catastrophe of Covid, the consequences of Putin's mad invasion and an ever more beligerent China but they seem to me to stagger from one make do to the next without a plan, without vision, without thought of the consequences. They are an extremely unconservative government in every way. They do not respect the rule of law, our institutions, our sense of dignity and proprietry. Enough.
Tangentially, everyone keeps calling Boris a lucky general, but his time in office has been uniquely blighted by circumstance even if you ignore his own moral and practical failings.
Not really. Thatcher had the Falklands. Major had the gulf war and ERM debacle. Blair had 9/11 and the dot com bubble. Brown had global financial collapse. May had the 2016 aftermath,
Only Cameron had it relatively easy, but he contrived to shoot himself in the foot.
Falklands and the Gulf War were serious and comparable to the war with Ukraine, but that still makes Boris's first couple of years rather uniquely serious in having Covid and War to deal with.
ERM and 9/11 were in the PM's respective second terms after they'd already won re-election. The fact you're grasping for things they dealt with in their second terms shows just how manic this first term has been, we do live in "interesting times".
I don't think you can count the 2016 aftermath for May as that wasn't an event to occur after she was elected, it was what she was elected to deal with. Similarly, you must say the same about Boris for Brexit.
So the only one that leaves comparable is possibly Brown, though again that was one event (economic) rather than multiple (plague and war and economy).
The global financial crisis, the Covid pandemic and 9/11 were the biggest challenges.
Was 9/11 a major structural change? I know it certainly was a psychological inflection, and it affected things like foreign policy, airline security, and it lead to an uptick in anti-Muslim bigotry, but do we exaggerate its importance?
Yes, 9/11 was a major structural change and set the tone for C21. No 9/11, no Iraq, no Brexit, no Trump, possibly no financial crash.
There would still have been a GFC because the seeds of that were sown under Clinton.
It might have been slightly later or somewhat less severe as there would have been less need for unfunded borrowing on the part of America and Britain to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but the sub-prime crisis was going to occur at some point.
The seeds were sown before, but the dangers may have been dealt with if attention and political capital had not been spent elsewhere. I am still convinced that 9/11 significantly changed the course of the West in C21 and not for the better. Bin Laden achieved pretty much everything he set out to do.
Hmmm. I think that's a very optimistic analysis. Between America's greed for housing, Brown's hubris, the ECB's obsession with trying to unify monetary policy, China's corruption, Japan's stagnation and Russia's chronic instability I think people would have found plenty of other reasons to bury their heads in the sand.
The ability of the west to make tough economic choices would have been significantly greater. We might have clocked dangers in China and Russia, rather than needing their tacit support. Would Brown even still have been in no11?
A few more of you big brains have arisen from slumber so - cummon - can I have responses to my post early this morning:
If (as pigeon posits) the LP win most seats but are reliant on support from both the LDs and SNP, which of these scenarios would play out?:
1) LDs and SNP agree to go into formal coalition with the LP
or
2) LDs ands SNP would only support the LP with no formal coalition
Or would LDs opt for one and the SNP the other.
Bear in mind that only formal coalition would result in LD and SNP cabinet ministers.
3) Labour rules as a minority government. Refuses to offer a Coalition. It introduces things the SNP like. A referendum in 4 years time. And things the LD's like. PR for Councils and possibly HoL? The latter would be a multi year project. And nowt else radical. They are able to command a solid majority in practice. Meanwhile. The Conservative Party has to confront its ideological incoherence and has a difficult debate about what the heck it is for. Then Labour goes to the country after two years. It's the Wilson playbook. They need to win first of course. And a lot depends on the numbers of course.
This is only possible if LP wins most seats (but no majority).
What if CP win most seats but no majority and the only majority that can be found is LP/LD/SNP?
Is it? It's perfectly possible to rule as the second largest Party provided you can pass a Queen's Speech. Although the media and Tories would kick up a stink.
Surely in that scenario it would be the CP which runs as a minority government? I know that would be short-lived.
No. Because unless they had the numbers with the DUP they'd be unlikely to pass a Queen's Speech. That's what makes you the government. Not a headcount or popular vote count.
But DUP have no moral authority to vote on non-NI bills, however. Or indeed any authority at all under EVEL. No wonder Mr Gove was so keen to abolish EVEL.
Comments
As for the LDs, would Davey give up the chance of being, say, Deputy PM or Chancellor?
Labour rules as a minority government. Refuses to offer a Coalition. It introduces things the SNP like. A referendum in 4 years time. And things the LD's like. PR for Councils and possibly HoL? The latter would be a multi year project. And nowt else radical. They are able to command a solid majority in practice.
Meanwhile. The Conservative Party has to confront its ideological incoherence and has a difficult debate about what the heck it is for.
Then Labour goes to the country after two years.
It's the Wilson playbook.
They need to win first of course. And a lot depends on the numbers of course.
SNP wouldn't join a coalition if asked, and wouldn't be asked anyway.
In answer to Keir Starmer: We are going to put our arms around the people of this country...
In answer to Andy McDonald: we will get through it very well by putting our arms around people...
In answer to Christian Wakeford: continue to put our arms around the people of this country...
But anyway, you’re right. Boris has done worse things and must go.
Use whats left of a brain for a moment - you used to have one. All parties bar maybe the DUP are against you. LD and SNP gains means fewer Tory MPs. The lower your number the greater the anti-Tory parties. It doesn't matter whether Labour win a majority or not - they can lock you out of power permanently with a grand coalition that rewrites the electoral system and embeds safeguards against crooks in power into the constitution.
ERM and 9/11 were in the PM's respective second terms after they'd already won re-election. The fact you're grasping for things they dealt with in their second terms shows just how manic this first term has been, we do live in "interesting times".
I don't think you can count the 2016 aftermath for May as that wasn't an event to occur after she was elected, it was what she was elected to deal with. Similarly, you must say the same about Boris for Brexit.
So the only one that leaves comparable is possibly Brown, though again that was one event (economic) rather than multiple (plague and war and economy).
https://twitter.com/TheBMA/status/1529407595399741441?t=jown5uS855UnhhmwhWfXZA&s=19
Real-terms pay cuts and punitive pension tax rules are driving doctors from the NHS; it is ‘utterly reprehensible’ for Government to suggest they be subject to pay restraint to help bail it out of its mismanagement of inflation.
@DavidGWrigley comment 👇https://t.co/0FuVER1NKn
What if CP win most seats but no majority and the only majority that can be found is LP/LD/SNP?
Laters.
It's perfectly possible to rule as the second largest Party provided you can pass a Queen's Speech. Although the media and Tories would kick up a stink.
Bassetlaw is seat 232 and Dudley North 155 for the Tories. To my mind everything else going points to massive trouble for the Tories, Labour won't need the SNP if its as bad as this for the blues. Straight Lib Lab deal to have a commanding majority
Technology allows us to fix all of that by bringing jobs to people as opposed to the expense of moving people to the jobs. WFH and Hybrid working is a new dawn in our economy. Instead of companies needing the expense of large offices and physical infrastructure they can make much of this virtual - shifting jobs to wherever people are.
Yet instead of leaping on this - a wonderful leap in potential economic performance - Bonzo instead remains in thrall to his property developer patrons and donors. Who want to protect asset prices of their property which so often we allow to be held in off-shore tax havens. It just demonstrates the absolute lack of a clue this lot have about anything.
1) Over the last few decades labour have won when the country is optimistic about the future. That is not the current state nor is it likely to be at the time of the next election and I do not expect any party to have actual answers to the mess that will work and I think the old feeling that conservatives will be more fiscally sound still lurks enough to give a small tory majority.
2) Labour minded people are busy scaring the horses to an alarming extent. We have probably the most left wing governement in most peoples living memory in terms of financial aid. The labour minded people are constantly labelling it a far right government which it clearly isn't so the question in a lot of peoples minds is going to be if you are claiming this government splashing cash left right and centre is far right and you say we need to move left that is one hell of a way to the left of centre.
There is a looming teacher recruitment shortage. The pay and conditions are woeful compared to the competition. And many experienced ones are quitting.
In addition. There's a huge demographic bubble about to hit Secondary School. Many more teachers are needed just to keep up with demand.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2022/may/28/government-pushing-universities-out-of-teacher-training-over-leftwing-politics-say-leaders
Doesn't work so well when you have to run the country, does it?
Its like being charged with burglary, then rewriting the law on remand so that when you come to trial your crimes are now legal...
Rishi Sunak is adopting the logic of Corbynomics
✍️ @oflynnsocial
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/did-jeremy-corbyn-win-the-general-election-
I'd be shocked if it goes the distance.
Britain Trump indeed!
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/revisions-to-the-ministerial-code-and-the-role-of-the-independent-adviser-on-ministers-interests/statement-of-government-policy-standards-in-public-life
So - some initial thoughts on the new ministerial code and the new job description for Lord Geidt, the adviser on ministerial interests...
1 - Lord Geidt's independence has NOT increased. He still has to ask the PM for permission to investigate. Anything else is bluster
https://twitter.com/timd_IFG/status/1530169356218507266
If they can afford Deepwater Horizon they can afford this. They can take it out of dividend distributions, and speaking as someone with a reasonable exposure to RDS and BP that's a form of wealth redistribution I am relaxed about in current circs
Plus you miss the cosmetic intention of the thing: it is not primarily intended to raise money, it's meant to look as if it is raising money as a figleaf for the fact that the government is primarily *borrowing* in order to spaff.
I really despise this way of thinking, this sado-populism.
Is the confidence vote public or by secret ballot?
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-issued-third-warning-26938959
It might have been slightly later or somewhat less severe as there would have been less need for unfunded borrowing on the part of America and Britain to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but the sub-prime crisis was going to occur at some point.
I suspect such self belief goes with the territory for pretty well all " leaders of men" (and women). Mrs Thatcher (whom I detested) had a vision for the country, and she followed that vision unswervingly. Johnson has no vision past the next chocolate eclair or the next illicit shag. He just likes being King of the Castle, a position that showers him with both confectionery and nubile wenches.
1 Lefties have largely forgiven the Lib Dems for their role in coalition. That does wonders for the efficiency of the Lib Lab vote.
2 Starmer doesn't repel swing voters in the way late era Corbyn did.
Even if the Conservatives and Boris were as popular as they used to be, those factors would take a fair bite out of the government majority.
"Is there any precedent for help with cost of living crises?"
It's totally new to me. I suppose it must be a younger generation, namby-pamby, mental health issue. Every time inflation goes over 2% , it will be start printing money or we'll be all be bigots.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
https://apple.news/AQuvXYclARdyFb5hXyKSydg
Such plans are the go to solution of those who want to preserve the status quo of easy access to assault weapons for all. Such ideas might make a marginal difference, but they’re effectively a distraction - the go to resort of every Republican administration - and do little or nothing to address the real problem.
The police response to such situations has been around forever. Here’s an account from two decades back.
https://twitter.com/danielmkim/status/1529687298094379009
I can't fucking sleep tonight. Kept thinking about one of my last calls as an EMT after reading about cops not willingly putting themselves in harm's way. August 2001. I pulled my bus up just outside the PD cordon at the site of a DV call.
A Queen's Speech with an Indyref some years in the future, and some kind of move towards PR wouldn't be voted down.
But I don't see how it's working if it's not hurting. The one thing worse than a wage inflation spiral is a wage plus government help for hard working families inflation spiral
Meanwhile..