UK Politics: the moment of truth, or possibly untruth

[Raja]

2 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Lol thanks.  And am I right you all have a general election in 2 years so that the Torys theoretically could get shellacked, so the name of the game for them is to put in place a sacrificial lamb who hopefully won’t screw up the general for the party?  So, basically, if you are playing the game on their side, you want milquetoast loyalist who basically won’t do that much?  And the problem being that none of the contenders are able to help themselves (hopefully)?

Sorry, Maltaran had the helpful answer so I went with the unhelpful one.

From their side - I think they will want to seem competent and free from the scandals that have plagued the party during Johnson's time. Milquetoast & not doing much ( within reason), especially in the context of the cost of living crisis, would imo be the last thing they would want. Milquetoast would also run the risk of not being someone people would come out and vote for. 

Edit: I know Sunak is apparently one of the favourites with the bookies, but I would be very surprised if he gets anywhere close to winning.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Emily Thornberry roasting Suella Braverman and her ambitions

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

27 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

My preferred candidate, Larry Mouser, enters the fray

 

 

That was a “Fuck you” look from that cat if I ever saw one…

[Hereward]

47 minutes ago, mormont said:

It's a dilemma for Tory MPs. They won't want to vote for a motion of no confidence because it'll cause an election and none of them want one. But there's a risk that if they don't vote for it, Johnson claims that his mandate is renewed or some such rubbish and tries to cling on past the autumn. The latter is pretty clearly the lesser risk IMO though.

No. Ben Wallace is a good outside bet (in answer to BFC, there's a small contretemps in Ukraine that has done Wallace's chances no harm at all as defence secretary). He's regarded as a boring but competent choice, with a genuinely solid military career behind him and not having many enemies politically.

Sunak was the red hot favourite not that long ago, and although damaged, he has set out his stall pretty clearly as I said in the last thread, appealing to the traditional Thatcherite austerity fans.

Javid has a pretty good record too, having been Chancellor, Home Secretary, Business Secretary, Culture Secretary, and Health Secretary. If Sunak threw his weight behind Javid, which he might if he has cooled on being PM himself, that would put him into the front rank for sure.

Hunt is a possibility if the party want a more moderate choice, the only problem being neither the Parliamentary party nor the activists appear to want any truck with a more moderate choice.

Truss is an overpromoted talent vacuum but popular with the rank and file, who disdain things like actually being good at the job, so is likely to be in the final two.

Mordaunt and Tugendhat I'd put as the outsiders who might run in order to get a few votes they can trade for a top job.

One, it is possible to have a vote of confidence in the prime minister rather than the government, which Conservatives could support without triggering a General Election. Problem is that unlike a VONC, there’s no requirement to prioritise holding it.

Two, Wallace is a red hot favourite, not an outside bet. Conservative Hone and YouGov polls on head to head match ups show him winning by a landslide amongst Tory members. Mordaunt comes second. 
 

It’s important to remember that Tory members have strong views, but not strong ideologies. Michael Heseltine was once the darling of the conference and he was on the very tip of the party’s left wing. Wallace has a good military record, he’s regarded as patriotic and competent. That, absent a scandal, is probably enough for an electorate looking for a reliable, honest leader.

[Hereward]

25 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Emily Thornberry roasting Suella Braverman and her ambitions

 

Nice burn, although brave considering Thornberry’s leadership attempt!

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

No.

They all got deselected when Boris came to power.

Oh for a Dominic Grieve or Rory Stewart

Grieve was a piece of slime.  He actually deserved deselection.

[Hereward]

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Grieve was a piece of slime.  He actually deserved deselection.

Really? What did I miss? Apart from being a Francophile. OK, answered my own question. 
 

I kid! 
 

A bit.

[SeanF]

3 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Really? What did I miss? Apart from being a Francophile. OK, answered my own question. 
 

I kid! 
 

A bit.

His determination to frustrate every Bill that Theresa May brought to the Commons to implement Brexit, in conjunction with prats like Francois, (albeit with different motives) actually played a big part in Johnson coming to power.

[Which Tyler]

Ahhh, so you mean that he was opposed to the destruction of this country - yep, slime alright

[Hereward]

I’m going with Edmund Burke on this one. Opposing what to him, and me, was a massively self-destructive policy, damaging the country, on a matter of principle sounds like what I expect from an MP. Blaming Grieve for the party failing to see that and electing that shyster in response sounds like their problem, not his.

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Ahhh, so you mean that he was opposed to the destruction of this country - yep, slime alright

Grieve stood on a manifesto commitment to implement Brexit, and indeed stated to his constituents the referendum vote must be respected, and then proceeded to do the opposite.  Like Johnson, he’s frivolous and sees politics as the kind of game playing that takes place in the Oxford Union.

[SeanF]

9 minutes ago, Hereward said:

I’m going with Edmund Burke on this one. Opposing what to him, and me, was a massively self-destructive policy, damaging the country, on a matter of principle sounds like what I expect from an MP. Blaming Grieve for the party failing to see that and electing that shyster in response sounds like their problem, not his.

Then he should not have run as a Conservative, in 2017, if he could not vote for the Conservatives’ central policy.  He could have stood as an independent.

Burke would have expected a candidate to be upfront to his constituents;  not to run on one platform, while doing the opposite once elected.

[Hereward]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Then he should not have run as a Conservative, in 2017, if he could not vote for the Conservatives’ central policy.  He could have stood as an independent.

Oh come on, if every long standing MP refused to stand because there was something in the manifesto they disagreed with, the HoC would be even more of a vacuous bunch of bots than it is already. Do you really want a party that requires every single candidate to miraculously be of exactly the same mind on every single issue? 

[Darryk]

3 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

It already did, during Nixon's time (the 'Saturday Night Massacre') with the aftermath eventually leading to Nixon's resignation as well. Not the exact same thing of course, but I'd suggest the American case was more principled than a bunch of cabinet ministers seeing which way the wind was blowing.

Well I'm referring to American politics as it is now, which is very different from Nixon's time.

[SeanF]

9 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Oh come on, if every long standing MP refused to stand because there was something in the manifesto they disagreed with, the HoC would be even more of a vacuous bunch of bots than it is already. Do you really want a party that requires every single candidate to miraculously be of exactly the same mind on every single issue? 

This was not some minor issue in the manifesto that he happened to disagree with.  It was the issue upon which the election was called, in 2017.

It was open to him to inform his local party that he planned to vote against his party on Brexit, when he was reselected, and for them to decide whether or not to select him.  It was open to him to inform his voters that he planned to vote against.  He said the opposite.

Your attitude is similar to that of people like Emily Thornberry, who well knew that John Bercow was utterly unsuited to be Speaker, but kept him on because they hoped he'd frustrate Brexit.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Hereward said:

One, it is possible to have a vote of confidence in the prime minister rather than the government, which Conservatives could support without triggering a General Election. Problem is that unlike a VONC, there’s no requirement to prioritise holding it.

True, I suppose. But still, most Tory MPs wouldn't support an Opposition-led motion of no confidence, I think, for political reasons: and there's no prospect of a government motion, obviously.

1 hour ago, Hereward said:

Two, Wallace is a red hot favourite, not an outside bet.

So it seems from the betting odds! In my defence he was an outside bet until quite recently.

1 hour ago, Hereward said:

It’s important to remember that Tory members have strong views, but not strong ideologies.

I'm not sure this is true any more, but you've got more recent experience talking to them: they're thin on the ground in Scotland. I do know a few, but fewer than I used to.

In terms of getting to the last two, though, it's the Parliamentary vote that counts. So Wallace has to get that far, and whether he does that depends on who backs him, vs who backs the others. My suspicions of a Sunak/Javid team-up and belief that Truss will get to the final two mean I'm unsure if Wallace can do that.

[Hereward]

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

This was not some minor issue in the manifesto that he happened to disagree with.  It was the issue upon which the election was called, in 2017.

It was open to him to inform his local party that he planned to vote against his party on Brexit, when he was reselected, and for them to decide whether or not to select him.  It was open to him to inform his voters that he planned to vote against.  He said the opposite.

Your attitude is similar to that of people like Emily Thornberry, who well knew that John Bercow was utterly unsuited to be Speaker, but kept him on because they hoped he'd frustrate Brexit.

That hurts. Is your position that anyone standing has to wholeheartedly agree with policies they fundamentally disagree with, which rather prevents stupid policies from being overturned?

[SeanF]

Just now, Hereward said:

That hurts. Is your position that anyone standing has to wholeheartedly agree with policies they fundamentally disagree with, which rather prevents stupid policies from being overturned?

I think MP’s should be straightforward  with their local parties, and with their voters.  Don’t say one thing, and then do another.

Even in terms of realpolitik, it didn’t work.  By taking the line of most resistance, Grieve finished up with an outcome that worse (from his point of view) than he could have settled for.

[Hereward]

But MPs can’t be straightforward as you’ve already indicated, without lying or causing a complete fracturing of political parties. To me, a long-standing MP should be able to stand without complete adherence to current stupid policies.

Taking your position as an absolute would prevent Thatcherites from standing in the 70s, all Remainers standing as a Tory, and all Labour left wingers standing since 1951. 
 

That’s just a) wrong and b) silly.

 

PS Grieve did eventually stand as an independent, so I don’t think we can compelling accuse him of being a lying careerist.

[SeanF]

I’m making the arguments that the Beaconsfield constituency party made to him, before voting to deselect him, in 2019. I’m sure he thought he had told noble lies, to them and his constituents, but neither group agreed, in the end.