As big dog Gromit quits Wallace is who Tory members want to replace him – politicalbetting.com

noneoftheabove said:

Gardenwalker said:

The question is, who should be next Chancellor?

The correct answer is Gove, but I doubt any of the contenders would trust him in the job.

This is a bit like the Arsenal fans wondering why they don't give Jack Wilshere another go. Gove was overrated in the first place, seems to have had/be having a breakdown since and has been anonymous in all his recent roles.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Applicant said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:

Why allowing the fat toad to squat is a bad idea...

Exclusive: The Premier League has halted plans for clubs to vote on a voluntary ban on shirt sponsorship by gambling companies as the crisis engulfing Boris Johnson and his administration threatens to delay crucial betting industry reforms.
https://news.sky.com/story/premier-league-halts-gambling-ban-vote-amid-westminster-turmoil-12647726

Smoke screen by the premier league from having to make a difficult decision for them to voluntarily unhook themselves from taking dodgy money. Who is PM is irrelevant to the fact they take millions from gambling companies facilitating illegal gambling in China and involving Triads and Eastern European mafia.

It's an excuse, not a reason...

Given how quick some parts of the media to get outraged about middle eastern money, I am surprised how easily the premier league have got away with this. It isn't about being sponsored by gambling companies, it is they are sponsored by gangsters under taking illegal activities.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Curtailing the parliamentary process before going to the members - who are a bunch of lobotomised, elderly racists - could end up being sub-optimal for the Conservative Party.

Screw the Conservative Party. I am more concerned if it would be sub-optimal for the Country. I am in agreement with those on here who have said this should be a matter for the Parliamentary Party alone. The PM is supposed to represent the majority of the MPs in Parliament, not the party membership either at their constituency tea parties or on ConHome.

Scrap the membership vote and let the MPs decide who is their leader.

MISTY said:

numbertwelve said:

Scott_xP said:

New: An officer on the 1922 executive tells me they want the field of candidates whittled down to two by July 21 (when Parliament goes on recess), and new leader decided by September https://www.bloomberg.com/news/live-blog/2022-07-05/uk-government-resignations?srnd=premium-uk&sref=yMmXm5Iy

I’m not convinced it will go to the members. New leader by 22 July. Pressure to coalesce behind leader of MPs vote will be significant.

That's asking for trouble. IF one of the last two is a radical like Baker, and he loses, it smacks of a stitch-up.

Applicant said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Applicant said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:

Why allowing the fat toad to squat is a bad idea...

Exclusive: The Premier League has halted plans for clubs to vote on a voluntary ban on shirt sponsorship by gambling companies as the crisis engulfing Boris Johnson and his administration threatens to delay crucial betting industry reforms.
https://news.sky.com/story/premier-league-halts-gambling-ban-vote-amid-westminster-turmoil-12647726

Smoke screen by the premier league from having to make a difficult decision for them to voluntarily unhook themselves from taking dodgy money. Who is PM is irrelevant to the fact they take millions from gambling companies facilitating illegal gambling in China and involving Triads and Eastern European mafia.

It's an excuse, not a reason...

Given how quick some parts of the media to get outraged about middle eastern money, I am surprised how easily the premier league have got away with this. It isn't about being sponsored by gambling companies, it is they are sponsored by gangsters under taking illegal activities.

The PL (like all sports organisations) should have noticed by now that a ban on gambling sponsorship is coming, so they might as well get out in front of it. Snooker for one has figured it out, it's been moving away from gambling sponsorship for a couple of years, and darts has caught on in the last year or so too - a handful of years ago I would have thought both sports' tours were at significant risk given their earlier reliance on betting sponsorship.

Nigel_Foremain said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

We also assume the Red Wall is coming back - people believed for a long time only Johnson could do that. And now he's gone.

We will see.

I think things are now very uncertain, as a Labour person Morduant is who I most fear.

I am sort of hoping for Mordaunt, sorry old chap! The one thing you may be able to rely on is that the Tory selectorate is full of swiveleyed nutjobs, so they are most likely to pick some loon

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Curtailing the parliamentary process before going to the members - who are a bunch of lobotomised, elderly racists - could end up being sub-optimal for the Conservative Party.

Screw the Conservative Party. I am more concerned if it would be sub-optimal for the Country. I am in agreement with those on here who have said this should be a matter for the Parliamentary Party alone. The PM is supposed to represent the majority of the MPs in Parliament, not the party membership either at their constituency tea parties or on ConHome.

Scrap the membership vote and let the MPs decide who is their leader.

solarflare said:

Applicant said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Applicant said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:

Why allowing the fat toad to squat is a bad idea...

Exclusive: The Premier League has halted plans for clubs to vote on a voluntary ban on shirt sponsorship by gambling companies as the crisis engulfing Boris Johnson and his administration threatens to delay crucial betting industry reforms.
https://news.sky.com/story/premier-league-halts-gambling-ban-vote-amid-westminster-turmoil-12647726

Smoke screen by the premier league from having to make a difficult decision for them to voluntarily unhook themselves from taking dodgy money. Who is PM is irrelevant to the fact they take millions from gambling companies facilitating illegal gambling in China and involving Triads and Eastern European mafia.

It's an excuse, not a reason...

Given how quick some parts of the media to get outraged about middle eastern money, I am surprised how easily the premier league have got away with this. It isn't about being sponsored by gambling companies, it is they are sponsored by gangsters under taking illegal activities.

The PL (like all sports organisations) should have noticed by now that a ban on gambling sponsorship is coming, so they might as well get out in front of it. Snooker for one has figured it out, it's been moving away from gambling sponsorship for a couple of years, and darts has caught on in the last year or so too - a handful of years ago I would have thought both sports' tours were at significant risk given their earlier reliance on betting sponsorship.

Snooker and darts probably learned the lesson better than most sports from having to get off the tobacco money.

Omnium said:

Andy_JS said:

Scott_xP said:

Tory leadership latest:

Source: "Penny Mordaunt has her team in place and was meeting MPs yesterday. Tom Tugendhat also meeting people."

Steve Baker thinking about it, Braverman says she'll run, Javid and Truss sure to stand.

Already getting pretty crowded ...

Is Rishi Sunak definitely standing?

He'd be invisible if sitting down.

Applicant said:

Sandpit said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

Views on contenders:

Sunak - no
Javid: hmmm
Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day
Truss: absolutely not
Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team
Braverman: please God no
Wallace: possibly

Curious why you say absolutely not about Truss?

I believe you've been very positive about her in the past on her role for Equalities and Women's issues which I know is an issue close to your heart?

So I'm wondering what she's said or done to make her absolutely not, despite that?

She can stay as Equalities Minister or Kemi can do it.

But I don't think she has what it takes to be PM.

She may well get it, mind.

Do you mind if I ask why?

She's been in the Cabinet about a decade under three very different Prime Ministers. I can't really think of any scandals anywhere she's been, other than she once spoke about cheese and pork markets weirdly nearly a decade ago.

Seems like a sensible, moderate choice to me.

OK - recently she has been too obviously playing at being the next Maggie. I like ambition but in her it has felt inauthentic in the sense of wanting the job in order to be PM rather than in order to achieve something.

Why does she want the job? What does she want to do with it? When she speaks about this it feels to me like empty-headed slogans, a series of cliches, rather than anything thought through and felt.

I liked how she went about the Equalities brief because I felt she had though through the issues and tried to come up with a sensible practical compromise. And she also did it quietly without seeking to weaponise it.

I don't know what she stands for. I worry that she is going to appeal to the worst aspects of the Tory membership if it will get her the job regardless of whether it works or is in the best interests of the country ie that we get Boris in a dress.

I may be wrong on that. She is cunning and a survivor. But she has seemed out of her depth as Foreign Secretary and too inclined to play to the gallery.

Really, what I want is a leader who is going to be honest about the problems we face and how we are going to have to deal with them. I do not see many politicians willing to do that. And I see too many who are more interested in being PM than in using that power for a purpose. And far too many whose thinking amounts to a stream of off the shelf cliches and slogans which a moderately intelligent 15-year old could easily pull apart.

Bizarre post. None of the candidates fulfil what you say. No politician for that matter or at least no politician in government is going to be "honest about the problems we face".

Or does a dark suit and tie make someone more credible?

What a bizarre response. What have suits got to do with it?

We have had politicians in the past who have been honest about problems Thatcher for instance was frank about wanting to arrest Britain's decline and that this was not going to be easy.

We face a lot of problems. We are not even going to begin solving them if we don't recognise the mess we are in.

But, yeah, politicians prefer pandering to the fantasies of voters .... and so the mess gets worse.

The next year or two is going to be horrific economically. Who will have the guts to be honest with the public about it?

As May demonstrated, honesty with the public about bad news is not in one's electoral interest.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Applicant said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Applicant said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_xP said:

Why allowing the fat toad to squat is a bad idea...

Exclusive: The Premier League has halted plans for clubs to vote on a voluntary ban on shirt sponsorship by gambling companies as the crisis engulfing Boris Johnson and his administration threatens to delay crucial betting industry reforms.
https://news.sky.com/story/premier-league-halts-gambling-ban-vote-amid-westminster-turmoil-12647726

Smoke screen by the premier league from having to make a difficult decision for them to voluntarily unhook themselves from taking dodgy money. Who is PM is irrelevant to the fact they take millions from gambling companies facilitating illegal gambling in China and involving Triads and Eastern European mafia.

It's an excuse, not a reason...

Given how quick some parts of the media to get outraged about middle eastern money, I am surprised how easily the premier league have got away with this. It isn't about being sponsored by gambling companies, it is they are sponsored by gangsters under taking illegal activities.

The PL (like all sports organisations) should have noticed by now that a ban on gambling sponsorship is coming, so they might as well get out in front of it. Snooker for one has figured it out, it's been moving away from gambling sponsorship for a couple of years, and darts has caught on in the last year or so too - a handful of years ago I would have thought both sports' tours were at significant risk given their earlier reliance on betting sponsorship.

The key thing about EPL is they haven't been just taking Bet365 or Ladbrokes money, they have been taking gangsters money, and they also now promoting dodgy as hell crypto stuff.

Everybody knows it, yet the clubs just turn a blind eye to the fact these companies often don't even have a functioning website accessible in the west.

MarqueeMark said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

We also assume the Red Wall is coming back - people believed for a long time only Johnson could do that. And now he's gone.

We will see.

I think things are now very uncertain, as a Labour person Morduant is who I most fear.

I am sort of hoping for Mordaunt, sorry old chap! The one thing you may be able to rely on is that the Tory selectorate is full of swiveleyed nutjobs, so they are most likely to pick some loon

Only if given a chance to pick a loon from two candidates.

MPs have to be loon-filters.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Scott_xP said:

Jacob Rees-Mogg will not be standing for Tory leader

The only person more ludicrous and unsuitable than the previous incumbent.

Farooq said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Largest lead for Labour since mid-January.

Westminster Voting Intention (7 July):

Labour 43% (+2)
Conservative 31% (-4)
Liberal Democrat 12% (+1)
Green 7% (+2)
Scottish National Party 3% (–)
Reform UK 2% (-4)
Other 3% (+2)

Changes +/- 3 July

Lab + Grn 50%
Fifty percent.

FIFTY

MrEd said:

wooliedyed said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Largest lead for Labour since mid-January.

Westminster Voting Intention (7 July):

Labour 43% (+2)
Conservative 31% (-4)
Liberal Democrat 12% (+1)
Green 7% (+2)
Scottish National Party 3% (–)
Reform UK 2% (-4)
Other 3% (+2)

Changes +/- 3 July

I think they'd bank that all day long given the chaos of the last 72 hours

Weird Reform down so much off the back of the Tory fall. You would have thought they would have picked up votes.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Applicant said:

Sandpit said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

Views on contenders:

Sunak - no
Javid: hmmm
Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day
Truss: absolutely not
Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team
Braverman: please God no
Wallace: possibly

Curious why you say absolutely not about Truss?

I believe you've been very positive about her in the past on her role for Equalities and Women's issues which I know is an issue close to your heart?

So I'm wondering what she's said or done to make her absolutely not, despite that?

She can stay as Equalities Minister or Kemi can do it.

But I don't think she has what it takes to be PM.

She may well get it, mind.

Do you mind if I ask why?

She's been in the Cabinet about a decade under three very different Prime Ministers. I can't really think of any scandals anywhere she's been, other than she once spoke about cheese and pork markets weirdly nearly a decade ago.

Seems like a sensible, moderate choice to me.

OK - recently she has been too obviously playing at being the next Maggie. I like ambition but in her it has felt inauthentic in the sense of wanting the job in order to be PM rather than in order to achieve something.

Why does she want the job? What does she want to do with it? When she speaks about this it feels to me like empty-headed slogans, a series of cliches, rather than anything thought through and felt.

I liked how she went about the Equalities brief because I felt she had though through the issues and tried to come up with a sensible practical compromise. And she also did it quietly without seeking to weaponise it.

I don't know what she stands for. I worry that she is going to appeal to the worst aspects of the Tory membership if it will get her the job regardless of whether it works or is in the best interests of the country ie that we get Boris in a dress.

I may be wrong on that. She is cunning and a survivor. But she has seemed out of her depth as Foreign Secretary and too inclined to play to the gallery.

Really, what I want is a leader who is going to be honest about the problems we face and how we are going to have to deal with them. I do not see many politicians willing to do that. And I see too many who are more interested in being PM than in using that power for a purpose. And far too many whose thinking amounts to a stream of off the shelf cliches and slogans which a moderately intelligent 15-year old could easily pull apart.

Bizarre post. None of the candidates fulfil what you say. No politician for that matter or at least no politician in government is going to be "honest about the problems we face".

Or does a dark suit and tie make someone more credible?

What a bizarre response. What have suits got to do with it?

We have had politicians in the past who have been honest about problems Thatcher for instance was frank about wanting to arrest Britain's decline and that this was not going to be easy.

We face a lot of problems. We are not even going to begin solving them if we don't recognise the mess we are in.

But, yeah, politicians prefer pandering to the fantasies of voters .... and so the mess gets worse.

The next year or two is going to be horrific economically. Who will have the guts to be honest with the public about it?

As May demonstrated, honesty with the public about bad news is not in one's electoral interest.

Do you really think Mrs "Brexit Means Brexit" was honest with the public?

She avoided any difficult choices with the public until it was too late. Her care home initiative hadn't had any honest legwork done before it was announced and was intended to be popular.

The only honest thing she said was about scrapping the triple lock. Respect to her for that one. 👍

MrEd said:

wooliedyed said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Largest lead for Labour since mid-January.

Westminster Voting Intention (7 July):

Labour 43% (+2)
Conservative 31% (-4)
Liberal Democrat 12% (+1)
Green 7% (+2)
Scottish National Party 3% (–)
Reform UK 2% (-4)
Other 3% (+2)

Changes +/- 3 July

I think they'd bank that all day long given the chaos of the last 72 hours

Weird Reform down so much off the back of the Tory fall. You would have thought they would have picked up votes.

Scott_xP said:

In the official readout of today's Cabinet, No10 said
@BorisJohnson told his colleagues that "major fiscal decisions should be left for the next Prime Minister".
There goes that tax cuts plan that was due next week.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1545076639817760768

wooliedyed said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Largest lead for Labour since mid-January.

Westminster Voting Intention (7 July):

Labour 43% (+2)
Conservative 31% (-4)
Liberal Democrat 12% (+1)
Green 7% (+2)
Scottish National Party 3% (–)
Reform UK 2% (-4)
Other 3% (+2)

Changes +/- 3 July

I think they'd bank that all day long given the chaos of the last 72 hours

noneoftheabove said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Scott_xP said:

Jacob Rees-Mogg will not be standing for Tory leader

The only person more ludicrous and unsuitable than the previous incumbent.

Oi, Fabricant wants a word. As do Francois, Dorries, et al.

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

TOPPING said:

Cyclefree said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

Views on contenders:

Sunak - no
Javid: hmmm
Mordaunt: no - said daft things about Brexit, organised that ludicrous Leadsom March and got utterly pawned by Mumsnet the other day
Truss: absolutely not
Tugendhat: maybe depending on his team
Braverman: please God no
Wallace: possibly

Curious why you say absolutely not about Truss?

I believe you've been very positive about her in the past on her role for Equalities and Women's issues which I know is an issue close to your heart?

So I'm wondering what she's said or done to make her absolutely not, despite that?

She can stay as Equalities Minister or Kemi can do it.

But I don't think she has what it takes to be PM.

She may well get it, mind.

Do you mind if I ask why?

She's been in the Cabinet about a decade under three very different Prime Ministers. I can't really think of any scandals anywhere she's been, other than she once spoke about cheese and pork markets weirdly nearly a decade ago.

Seems like a sensible, moderate choice to me.

OK - recently she has been too obviously playing at being the next Maggie. I like ambition but in her it has felt inauthentic in the sense of wanting the job in order to be PM rather than in order to achieve something.

Why does she want the job? What does she want to do with it? When she speaks about this it feels to me like empty-headed slogans, a series of cliches, rather than anything thought through and felt.

I liked how she went about the Equalities brief because I felt she had though through the issues and tried to come up with a sensible practical compromise. And she also did it quietly without seeking to weaponise it.

I don't know what she stands for. I worry that she is going to appeal to the worst aspects of the Tory membership if it will get her the job regardless of whether it works or is in the best interests of the country ie that we get Boris in a dress.

I may be wrong on that. She is cunning and a survivor. But she has seemed out of her depth as Foreign Secretary and too inclined to play to the gallery.

Really, what I want is a leader who is going to be honest about the problems we face and how we are going to have to deal with them. I do not see many politicians willing to do that. And I see too many who are more interested in being PM than in using that power for a purpose. And far too many whose thinking amounts to a stream of off the shelf cliches and slogans which a moderately intelligent 15-year old could easily pull apart.

Bizarre post. None of the candidates fulfil what you say. No politician for that matter or at least no politician in government is going to be "honest about the problems we face".

Or does a dark suit and tie make someone more credible?

What a bizarre response. What have suits got to do with it?

I suppose on inspection I noted an immediate and conclusive dismissal of the female candidates.

Scott_xP said:

Real pick-up artist energy from a young Nadhim Zahawi 🔥 https://twitter.com/helennianias/status/1544972161433145344/photo/1

Nigel_Foremain said:

MoonRabbit said:

wooliedyed said:

Roger said:

I missed the resignation speech. The Huffington Post described it as 'graceless' which isn't surprising because one of the most notable things about him is that he IS graceless. Charmless and graceless. I don't think he'll be missed at all.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-resignation-speech-theresa-may-cameron-blair-brown_uk_62c6bb65e4b0359fa477d629

Weirdly Beth Rigby went all soft and called it 'classic Johnson' and 'dignified'
Then Adam Boulton came on and pissed all over their chips

I saw that, it was very funny. 😆 no love lost between bunter and Boris, or was it bunter and anything Beth says?

I thought it was okay address from Boris. Horrible for him to have to deliver so soon, but he managed it without too much praising up his achievements and this being rather dignified about it.

The "herd" thing was characteristically twattish

solarflare said:

Scott_xP said:

Real pick-up artist energy from a young Nadhim Zahawi 🔥 https://twitter.com/helennianias/status/1544972161433145344/photo/1

I'm thinking struggling early-career magician.

TimS said:

The winning candidate is going to do it on:

- Brexit but with new unicorns
- Tax cuts
- Protecting property prices
- A smattering of send-em-back rhetoric
- Avoiding anything that might upset NIMBYs or pensioners

biggles said:

wooliedyed said:

Largest lead for Labour since mid-January.

Westminster Voting Intention (7 July):

Labour 43% (+2)
Conservative 31% (-4)
Liberal Democrat 12% (+1)
Green 7% (+2)
Scottish National Party 3% (–)
Reform UK 2% (-4)
Other 3% (+2)

Changes +/- 3 July

https://t.co/K0y4egVrGL https://t.co/At4k6oBDZb

Taken this morning

This morning? If so that’s awesome for the Tories.

Leon said:

I hope @Heathener, so critical of my complacency, is pleased that I have just been swimming HERE



Utterly Edenic. A river to myself. The valley teems with vivid birdlife, dipping and rolling in joyous loops

MISTY said:

TimS said:

The winning candidate is going to do it on:

- Brexit but with new unicorns
- Tax cuts
- Protecting property prices
- A smattering of send-em-back rhetoric
- Avoiding anything that might upset NIMBYs or pensioners

Getting rid of hard target of 2050 at all costs for net zero is above all of those, I reckon.

MISTY said:

TimS said:

The winning candidate is going to do it on:

- Brexit but with new unicorns
- Tax cuts
- Protecting property prices
- A smattering of send-em-back rhetoric
- Avoiding anything that might upset NIMBYs or pensioners

Getting rid of hard target of 2050 at all costs for net zero is above all of those, I reckon.

MISTY said:

TimS said:

The winning candidate is going to do it on:

- Brexit but with new unicorns
- Tax cuts
- Protecting property prices
- A smattering of send-em-back rhetoric
- Avoiding anything that might upset NIMBYs or pensioners

Getting rid of hard target of 2050 at all costs for net zero is above all of those, I reckon.

Farooq said:

NickPalmer said:

biggles said:

wooliedyed said:

Largest lead for Labour since mid-January.

Westminster Voting Intention (7 July):

Labour 43% (+2)
Conservative 31% (-4)
Liberal Democrat 12% (+1)
Green 7% (+2)
Scottish National Party 3% (–)
Reform UK 2% (-4)
Other 3% (+2)

Changes +/- 3 July

https://t.co/K0y4egVrGL https://t.co/At4k6oBDZb

Taken this morning

This morning? If so that’s awesome for the Tories.

Anecdote - a Tory/LD switcher who I know says she feels sorry for poor Boris. I wonder how widespread that feeling is?

Rule of thumb: think of some unimaginably mad opinion, and ask twenty random people about it. One of them will agree.
That's your baseline for views that can only be the result of Foaming Dog Fever. If you find more than 5% who hold that view, you're onto a real phenomenon.

biggles said:

wooliedyed said:

Largest lead for Labour since mid-January.

Westminster Voting Intention (7 July):

Labour 43% (+2)
Conservative 31% (-4)
Liberal Democrat 12% (+1)
Green 7% (+2)
Scottish National Party 3% (–)
Reform UK 2% (-4)
Other 3% (+2)

Changes +/- 3 July

https://t.co/K0y4egVrGL https://t.co/At4k6oBDZb

Taken this morning

This morning? If so that’s awesome for the Tories.