Where do we even start? – politicalbetting.com
Where do we even start? – politicalbetting.com
Labour open 1/8 favourites to win the Uxbridge & South Ruislip by-electionhttps://t.co/B5t9CIDMer pic.twitter.com/GqTXoh846U
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
How does the Conservative Party-Media nexus respond?
Some important bits seem content to follow Boris into embittered madness.
Two points spring to mind:
*) Even if this is the end of BJ's political career, he will not go quietly. He will spend years writing articles and appearing on TV moaning about how all his successors are doing things wrong. Think Heath on acid.
*) Back when he was MoL, I decided that BJ was unsuitable for high office. It's interesting that his downfall have been due not to bad governance, but the character flaws that were all too visible then. A propensity to help his mates; a tendency to ignore advice; a habit of non-cooperation with critics. An obfuscation of the truth. A policy of spreading mistruths and bluster. All these were plainly visible in the Garden Bridge debacle.
And those two events dominated his premiership.
I still quite like BJ; he has an appealing cheeky-chappy persona (although I know that drives some people nuts). But someone being likable does not mean they'll be a good PM or leader.
Quelle suprise.
Very good!
It was obvious he would, but it may not have been obvious to Johnson.
Back in his pomp, about two years ago, people talked about Boris Derangement Syndrome. The idea that his enemies were driven mad by his success and couldn't respond properly to his brilliance.
Who is looking deranged now?
The LibDems are brilliant at these sort of wins. Don't waste your money folks.
The required swing to the LibDems will only just put it into the top 25 by-election gains, but I expect the actual swing to be over 30%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_by-election_records
It will be two crushing by-election losses for the tories, one to the LibDems, the other to Labour.
Of course, we've seen huge by-election opposition wins before but it's the fact that it's <16 months from the next GE that should cause alarm.
1 The UK-US should NOT have withdrawn in the manner we did from Afghanistan, and if Boris had been on the ball he'd have stopped Biden doing it. Our chaotic, sloppy, hasty departure greenlit Putin for his Ukraine invasion.
2. We should have been far more robust at the outset and put a no-fly zone in place. Period. Stand up to bullies. Maggie would have.
'Good morning and it is a good morning
The sun is already shining through on what looks like a beautiful day to come
It is also the day Johnson and Dorries are ex mps, and who expected that joyous news this time yesterday
And my wife and I are going for a 5 day break in the Isle of Man tomorrow following the footsteps of my beloved mother and father who went there regularly, not least due to my father's love of motorbikes. We have been promising we would do this trip since 1964 when we first moved to Llandudno and so it comes to pass
I have no idea what happens to the conservative party now but at least Sunak has a chance to start the purge of the ever decreasing number of Johnson sycophants
I expect the last 24 hours has ended any idea of a Spring 24 election with Oct 24 even more likely
Apparently my daughter told me that returning home from Leeds yesterday afternoon the queuing traffic coming into North Wales was almost at a standstill and her journey was long and very frustrating
It just affirms what those of us who live in North Wales know that we live in a delightful and beautiful part of the UK and we hope all our visitors have a wonderful time and spend their money in our attractions and shops'
*I would just add that the Llandudno Inshore Lifeboat received a shout at 5.19 this morning and would caution everybody entering into or on the sea, river or lakes to respect the water and keep safe
*And on topic, I do not see the conservative party retaining either seat
"We hear so much about gender dysphoria, I say – have you experienced any body euphoria since transitioning? His face creases into an ecstatic smile. “To be honest, Simon, I experience it every single day when I wake up in the morning. When I say that I was always consumed by discomfort, I mean it. So the fact that I get up in the morning and get out of bed and stretch like this [he extends his arms to their full length] – that to me is body euphoria.” "
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jun/10/elliot-page-juno-hollywoods-dark-side-coming-out-twice
2. Perhaps. But a no-fly zone was always going to be a massive step towards escalation. Instead, the UK has been leading the smaller steps - from NLAWs and training to tanks and long-range missiles (a couple of these after BJ, admittedly).
It was her Government's announcement of defence cuts, particularly the navy, that greenlit the Argentinians to invade.
But, whether or not you think Britain had a valid right to the islands the fact is that under UN law they did, so her response with the task force was pure Margaret Thatcher.
I'd like to think Maggie would have been equally as robust from the outset with Putin. A No Fly Zone was a necessity.
But for that to make wider news, rather than just being throwaway stuff for Torygraph readers to froth over at breakfast, he surely has to maintain the position that he's not an ex-politician, but merely resting before his triumphant return.
Even then it gradually fades. Anthony Seldon yesterday on Newsnight made the comparison with Lloyd-George who, right up to the Second World War, entertained and encouraged fantasies about a second coming (indeed, he was offered a fairly minor role in Churchill's War Cabinet). But it was diminishing returns in terms of maintaining public interest, really, as the circus had moved on it was increasingly clear there was no route for him - and he was at least doing it from the Commons.
I struggle to see much more than a death spiral of reducing interest ahead for Johnson. It's hard to see what the realistic route back for him now, as even a future Tory leader in the Johnson mould (perhaps especially such a leader) won't want him returning to Westminster to be a thorn in their side, and he's burned too many bridges to be viable.
That was not going to happen unless they first directly attacked NATO.
Completely delusional of course.
A drunken, lying populist with zero judgement and a penchant for bellicose rhetoric who ultimately has neither judgement nor intellect in sufficient quantities to be a significant player in normal circumstances.*
Johnson's problem is that it seems unlikely that he will happen on one salient issue, by chance, and it become the defining issue of our times. Brexit was closest but not close enough.
*In one way of course Churchill was very different - with all his faults, he wasn't lazy.
And in being principled, even if some of those principles were peculiar.
As several people pointed out, a no-fly zone would require armed NATO aircraft to directly confront armed Russian aircraft.
Further Russian long range SAMs and air to air missiles could be fired at aircraft over Ukraine from deep inside Russia.
To defend themselves, aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone would need to fire when targeted, not when attacked. So they would need to shoot first, probably *into* Russia.
Points of principle he changed his mind on include Free Trade, Socialism, the gold standard, Ireland, India, not resisting aggressive dictators...
The key thing about Churchill is not that he was principled, or even that he was right. It was that he happened to be right about Hitler.
What a day o joyous news.
Boris out, Trump in trouble, and, best of all, is..
""Miracle" children found alive 40 days after Amazon crash !" One of those days where all the sacrificed grimness of winter is worth it, and it's great to be alive.
I don't know. But I certainly wouldn't rule out backing the Conservatives at any price.
Home Secretary
First Lord of the Admiralty
Minister for Munitions (during WW1)
SoS for War
SoS for Air
SoS for the Colonies
Chancellor of the Exchequer
All before 1930. A significant player surely.
I also liked Parnell's comment that his resignation letter was like a toddler reacting to being told there were no more biscuits and it is time for bed....
It was leadership, not rhetoric. Remember the atrocious management of our defences and the war effort before he took office.
He did the rhetoric, yes, that's part of it, but also combined the offices of PM and Minister of Defence into one, scrapped the myriad of bureaucratic Whitehall committees that had previously been badly managing the war effort piecemeal, fully mobilised the whole economy for it, and focused all decision-making on a small tight war cabinet that met several times a day and demanded "action this day".
That's leadership. Churchill was a romantic but he was no fool.
When Ritchie Herron woke after gender reassignment surgery, he had a feeling he had made a terrible mistake.
Five years later, his scars still sometimes weep and he cannot walk long distances or ride a bike. “I’ve awakened from what was a mental health crisis, to a body that will be for ever changed and damaged,” he said. He no longer identifies as transgender and is living as a gay man “as best I can, given what has happened”.
There's always anecdotes.
I’m not saying that to be flippant (and the scale of the victory could indeed be similar to 97); the circumstances of the coming election don’t really mirror those of any other; Spaffer is likely to make it weirder still, somehow.
As to service to his party; I think we can all agree that his own self - his comfort, image and legacy - is the only thing he ever acts in service towards.
He also said that this would prevent him standing for parliament in the future
It is essential the report is published so we can all see just how malign he is, and no matter our politics it is essential we all endorse the privileges committee and reject Johnson's attack on it and his personal attack on Harriet Harman
All avenues to his return must be closed off
Is this the end of Boris Johnson as a significant political figure? I think not, his attitude now exactly mirrors his long-ago school report about being affronted when his activities are called into question. And we have, so far, made no mention of what may be a power behind the throne; Carrie. Will she be satisfied with being the wife of a ‘has been’ politician turned occasional public speaker?
Here's the thing. Until World War II and the Attlee government, generally cabinet roles were not defined by pecking order but by the status of the man who held them. The big exceptions were Foreign Secretary and Lord Chancellor. So, for example, from 1924 to 1929 Willy Bridgeman was Baldwin's acknowledged deputy while Neville Chamberlain was considered the second most influential member of the government. One was First Lord of the Admiralty and the other Minister of Health. Similarly, from 1911-14 the person non-radical Liberals considered Asquith's most plausible successor was John Simon - the Attorney General.
The issue with Churchill was because of his rhetoric, flamboyance and journalistic career he was very popular and visible among the public. So he was kept in various roles for that reason. But he wasn't trusted. First Asquith, then Lloyd George and finally Baldwin generally kept him on a tight leash (and given what he did when they let him off the leash, in the South Wales riots or the Dardanelles, they were wise to do so). You will notice, for example, he was never considered for the Foreign Office.
Neville Chamberlain, in advising Baldwin on forming his 1924 cabinet, commented that while politically desirable to have Churchill for his high profile, there would undoubtedly be an outcry in the parliamentary party. 'however, I did not think it would be greater if he were at the Treasury than the Admiralty.' Churchill was genuinely surprised and much moved to be offered a department and not a roving role like Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
You can easily draw more than a superficial parallel with Johnson on that basis. However, there are some very important differences. First of all, Churchill did have some substance to back up his rhetoric. He was never only a journalist. He was also a soldier and even a diplomat. Second, he was never lazy and while he drank far more than he should have done he was not otherwise self-indulgent or a narcissist. Finally, Churchill was willing to abandon parties lightly and for reasons that were clearly spurious, but he didn't dip in and out of the House of Commons as it suited him (although he was briefly outside it in 1908 and from 1922-24 due to losing his seat) nor did he run from a fight.
Ultimately, I think Johnson saw only the results he wanted and never thought about how he would need to work to get them. Whatever his other faults and as you can probably tell, I'm no fan, Churchill was willing to make the effort where needed and where he thought it was worth it.
His judgement on most such choices was completely wrong. But, on Hitler, it happened to be right. Maybe it was an accident but it was a fortunate accident.
He has a point: it’s pretty pathetic compared to Holyrood. Where are the police vans? The sudden arrests? The secret mobile home? Westminster does need to do better…
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1667402122881540096?s=20
A 20-25% chance to hold onto a very safe seat they've had for decades isn't unfathomable.
Most likely he will sit Parliament out for a year or two, let Sunak and Hunt lose the next general election (he will hope reasonably heavily) and come back in a safe Tory seat in opposition if the Starmer government is unpopular and the economy still facing high inflation and even more frequent strikes
A difference, however, is that Lloyd-George remained an MP and the 1920s and 1930s were an odd, fractured and shifting period in British politics. So, although it was increasingly unlikely the roulette wheel would come round for DLG again, he was still at the table and available at any moment to present himself as the answer to whatever crisis it was.
I do struggle with what Johnson's route is. There is a fairly heavy incentive for Tory leaders to make a return to Parliament difficult, and without that he can't really be the solution to some kind of crisis, as he simply isn't there.
It *is* easy to forget that the rivalry between the Lib Dems and Labour can often be deep and vicious at local level.
If the consensus on the ground becomes Lib Dem in Mid Beds and focus leaflets start bombarding doormats then it won’t matter whether Labour push hard (as they did in N Shropshire).
Not a sordid deal to give the other lot a clear run at the Tories, but a pragmatic stewardship of finite campaigning resources.
However, I am skeptical about how much agency he has in his career now: the current (and any likely future) Conservative Party leadership will fight tooth and nail to keep him from standing again as a Conservative candidate, and the view of the voters is quite a bit more negative. So even if nominated, he could lose and I do not think he will be nominated.
He is finished.
Further, I don't think getting in at a by-election would necessarily be that easy, even mid term in a Labour Government. The Lib Dems would REALLY go after him as a carpet-bagging shyster who partied while your gran was dying, and there's a pretty big risk people would block his comeback for sh1ts and giggles - by-elections are circuses.
I suppose if you’re caught naked and in flagrante with a Dyson, denial is the only option.
https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co49043/hoover-dustette-vacuum-cleaner-vacuum-cleaner
A new party - MEGA English nationalists or similar, especially as there is a BXP/UKIP void is not adequately filled by Reclorm or Reflaim - might be possible, though. Someone else would need to do the hard work, mind.
The early indications are that he’s failed spectacularly and Sunak is likely to emerge stronger than before - that is in terms of his control of the Party. He’s still almost certainly going to lose the next election, and the by-elections as well.
https://public.conservatives.com/static/documents/candidates/Guide to becoming a Conservative Party Parliamentary Candidate-HH.pdf
That simply can't happen if he's been censured like this. He might have been allowed to contest a by-election after recall, but this has blown up his chances.
I'm thinking he does actually resemble Churchill very closely in that - but it's Randolph Churchill's insane resignation in 1886 I am thinking of.
https://youtu.be/8L5LNIi5bAs
In unrelated news my talk earlier this week was a triumph and got a very good write up in the trade press, which has made my week. The fee will even pay for the repair of my car so I may make it back to the Lakes in one piece without any more hideous blow outs. But first lunch in Primrose Hill ........
1. The Committee publishes its report, and says that e.g. he should be suspended for 3 weeks. As he isn't an MP, this is damaging but ultimately irrelevant.
2. Mid-Beds selects Johnson. He wins.
3. He returns to Parliament, and there are calls for the suspension to be applied, triggering a fresh recall.
I don't think that would pass the Commons - they'd feel it's retrospective and would extend the coap opera. But if they did:
4. Mid-Beds is asked to vote again. Exasperated, they vote Boris back in.
There is plenty of evidence that voters don't like being asked to reconsider immediately.
I agree the markets overstate the Lib Dems, though. It's not insurmountable but it's a very large Tory majority in circumstances which aren't quite as bad for the Tories as the other Lib Dem gains in this Parliament.
As for the Conservatives: "Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"