Jump to content

UK Politics: the moment of truth, or possibly untruth


mormont

Recommended Posts

On his replacement, thought it was interesting that the subheadline of politico's top story basically assumes it will be a woman - "The wildly ambitious prime minister won’t go quietly, but get ready for Britain’s third female leader."  The article later identifies Truss and Mordaunt as leading contenders.

Based on the discussion here, I'm guessing most don't agree with this assumption?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spockydog said:

So if the Tories fail to remove him immediately, and Starmer follows through on his threat and calls VONC, how will thing play out? 

If the Tories go with Starmer, does that trigger an election? 

The alternative is voting against Starmer's motion, and then what? They're stuck with him again? 

Not necessarily - if the Tories think they can appoint a PM who can command a majority, then they could ask the Queen to do that and continue without an election. However, it does dump the decision on HM and she really doesn’t want to have to do anything remotely political 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

I read this Twitter thread in hopes of understanding all of this better... it's in English, I think, but I know I'm more confused than ever over how all of this is going down, but not why. British politics, when will there be a West Wing style show for us Yanks to watch in BBC America...?

 

That is an impressive list of Tory sex scandals! 

But I too am puzzled - how does a guy wank a tractor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

On his replacement, thought it was interesting that the subheadline of politico's top story basically assumes it will be a woman - "The wildly ambitious prime minister won’t go quietly, but get ready for Britain’s third female leader."  The article later identifies Truss and Mordaunt as leading contenders.

Based on the discussion here, I'm guessing most don't agree with this assumption?

Wallace and Sunak are the two front runners with the bookies at the moment. I suspect Truss being a Johnson loyalist is unlikely to be an asset for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ljkeane said:

Wallace and Sunak are the two front runners with the bookies at the moment. I suspect Truss being a Johnson loyalist is unlikely to be an asset for her.

Thanks.  I'm familiar with Truss (less so Mordaunt), just was wondering if that seeming assumption was widely shared - cuz I didn't think it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

So if the Tories fail to remove him immediately, and Starmer follows through on his threat and calls VONC, how will things play out? 

If the Tories go with Starmer, does that trigger an election? 

The alternative is voting against Starmer's motion, and then what? They're stuck with him again? 

If the motion passes, there’s a fortnight to form another government that commands a majority in the Commons.  In the event that should not happen, then a GE takes place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Wallace and Sunak are the two front runners with the bookies at the moment. I suspect Truss being a Johnson loyalist is unlikely to be an asset for her.

I hope the bookies are better with predicting politicians than Doctor Who actors, because they're always wrong about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

So if the Tories fail to remove him immediately, and Starmer follows through on his threat and calls VONC, how will things play out? 

If the Tories go with Starmer, does that trigger an election? 

The alternative is voting against Starmer's motion, and then what? They're stuck with him again? 

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.

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

On his replacement, thought it was interesting that the subheadline of politico's top story basically assumes it will be a woman - "The wildly ambitious prime minister won’t go quietly, but get ready for Britain’s third female leader."  The article later identifies Truss and Mordaunt as leading contenders.

Based on the discussion here, I'm guessing most don't agree with this assumption?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the rundown mormont.  On this...

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

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.

He was also a really great rebounder and defender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Thanks for the rundown mormont.  On this...

He was also a really great rebounder and defender.

But he was also part of a team that were greater than the sum of their parts. That is not the modern Conservative party. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mormont said:

Ben Wallace is a good outside bet

Wallace is currently 5/2 favourite with Hills.

I have money on Tugendhat at 10/1, and yesterday I got on Steve Baker at 66/1 (now 16/1).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Is there any Tory who is moderate, and moderately competent who would do a half decent job of mitigating current problems, but also devoid of charisma, and would get violated in the next election? I want that one. 

No.

They all got deselected when Boris came to power.

Oh for a Dominic Grieve or Rory Stewart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...