When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[DynamicSpirit]

Rishi Sunak has just announced he's standing to be Tory leader, so we now have 3 declared candidates: Rishi Sunak, Tom Tugendhat, and Suella Braverman.

 

[Acfb]

Guido Fawkes has a list of declared backers here: https://order-order.com/2022/07/07/next-pm-whos-backing-who/.


I don't know how things will play out TBH. I'm tempted to bet on Truss TBH even though I thought it would be Mordaunt or Wallace before.

I can see how we could end up with a Tugendhat/Sunak/Javid vs Truss final 2 and then the members vote for Truss.

 

[Typhoon]

When you put it like that, it actually sounds like Johnson actually has a real talent for dragging down the party even after he promised to resign.

Johnson wouldn't have wanted to go now, especially in the way it has happened; he'd have hoped to brazen it out, used the 'I don't know what is going on' routine but it was too serious and it had happened too often. As someone who was a much superior PM than Johnson would ever be (as well as much more ruthless), he was caught out by '[e]vents, my dear boy, events.

 

[nlogax]

I think we're looking at Sunak, Truss, Mordaunt and Wallace as the final four here. Ideally Truss will give up at that point. She's terrible.

 

[nw1]

I think we're looking at Sunak, Truss, Mordaunt and Wallace as the final four here. Ideally Truss will give up at that point. She's terrible.

What does Wallace stand for? I genuinely don't know.

Is he neutral on Brexit and open to better relations with the EU (the best we can get I think), for example? What does he think of the more reactionary policies on law and order and immigration of the Johnson era?

As I haven't heard his name ascribed to anything outrageous before, I'm tempted to guess he would be a May/Phillip Hammond style middle-of-the-road figure (which is surely the best choice), but not sure.

Truss and Penelope Dyebinder - no thanks. Neither will appeal to the centre ground, I suspect (which gives some hopes for defeat in a GE, at least).

Sunak - better, but still a bit close to Johnson; also is he Brexity? Not sure.

 

[SynthD]

Johnson is sticking around to have a Chequers wedding, if you believe Twitter and the newspapers who use it.

Wallace and Tugendhat are both ex military people who want to solve the world’s issues with the military. A pro EU Sunak is probably the most electable option.

 

[jfollows]

Johnson is sticking around to have a Chequers wedding, if you believe Twitter and the newspapers who use it.

I think that's yesterday's news, unless it's come back again; my understanding is that the plans for the party at Chequers have been cancelled now (https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/sta...62c7f7708f081211720cd26ffilterKeyEvents=false).

8h ago09.18
According to the Sun’s Harry Cole, Boris Johnson and his wife Carrie have decided not to hold their wedding party in Chequers anyway. (See 9.13am.)

NEW: The planned Chequers wedding party is being moved to a different location at the end of this month. Source says the idea this has had any bearing on why the PM is staying on as caretaker is “frankly absurd” and where it happens doesn’t matter to them.

 

[TheEdge]

What does Wallace stand for? I genuinely don't know.

Is he neutral on Brexit and open to better relations with the EU (the best we can get I think), for example? What does he think of the more reactionary policies on law and order and immigration of the Johnson era?

As I haven't heard his name ascribed to anything outrageous before, I'm tempted to guess he would be a May/Phillip Hammond style middle-of-the-road figure (which is surely the best choice), but not sure.

I was quite ok with the idea of Ben Wallace right up until I read he's been quite anti-LGBT with his voting and opinions over the years. In fairness he has backtracked on some of them in more recent times but with the way to right wing is blowing at the moment I'd (even thought I'm not LGBT) be ever so slightly concerned about those public views on someone in the PMs seat. Not necessarily because of what they might do but because the opinions in the population they may empower.

Wallace and Tugendhat are both ex military people who want to solve the world’s issues with the military. A pro EU Sunak is probably the most electable option.

Wallace has however been touted as the next Secretary General of NATO when Jens Stoltenburg steps down in October. I honestly think, given his handing of Ukraine he'd be a far better fit and use to the world in that position.

 

[cjmillsnun]

They should choose their own leader, but then that leader has no mandate. We only expect a general election because it’s an indirect consequence of bringing the office into disrepute.

Labour are not to blame.

The new leader has a mandate of however many seats the majority is. Like it or not that’s how parliaments work. You elect your local MP and the party, not the PM.

 

[Cdd89]

I’ve noticed most PR supporters are on the left, but that assumes that voters don’t respond and that parties on the right don’t emerge. Changes don’t happen in a vacuum and I think it’s naive to think it would result in a lifetime of left wing governments; for the same reason that Scottish independence wouldn’t lead to a lifetime of Tory governments.

I personally support it, but don’t see how it could happen for two reasons:

1. It would be seen as anti-democratic to do so without a referendum (given the precedent set by the first one), which is likely to be negative given the complexity of explaining PR and the large margin against in the AV referendum
2. If a coalition imposed it without a referendum, I expect the backlash at the subsequent general election would be so large as to oust them (even under PR); it wouldn’t be forgotten either as the election itself would make it the central issue. Labour especially would know this, as the party most likely to suffer the long term consequences of being perceived to have breached voters’ trust, and they aren’t even clear gainers from PR anyway.

 

[Falcon1200]

Got on a L.M. (as was) train at Stafford along with two standard issue sour faced Mail / Tory voters, both females (ladies would be used if they were such) who made a dash for a 4 seat plus table seating...both sat opposite each other by the window, their bags and belongings next to them on the aisle seats, and the table covered with personal items...including their personal copies of the rag...supercilious smirks on their hitherto sour faces.

So the only people who put their bags on the seat next to them are Daily Mail readers, and such people are automatically Tory voters too ? I hadn't realised that, thanks for the info from your rigorous and exhaustive study.

 

[The Ham]

I’ve noticed most PR supporters are on the left, but that assumes that voters don’t respond and that parties on the right don’t emerge. Changes don’t happen in a vacuum and I think it’s naive to think it would result in a lifetime of left wing governments; for the same reason that Scottish independence wouldn’t lead to a lifetime of Tory governments.

I personally support it, but don’t see how it could happen for two reasons:

1. It would be seen as anti-democratic to do so without a referendum (given the precedent set by the first one), which is likely to be negative given the complexity of explaining PR and the large margin against in the AV referendum
2. If a coalition imposed it without a referendum, I expect the backlash at the subsequent general election would be so large as to oust them (even under PR); it wouldn’t be forgotten either as the election itself would make it the central issue. Labour especially would know this, and they aren’t even clear gainers from PR anyway.

One of my concerns about PR is for those areas where they currently are listened to by their MP (or at least it is believable that they would be listened to), however by being a more rural area between more urban areas the MP's may seek to focus on the more populated areas to get the most votes.

For example 3 areas get merged, each with 100,000 people, however given that the middle one of the three is 4 times the area of the others. To make things worse that middle area has 50,000 in a final urban area. Now how much do you think that the focus will be in those remaining places with (say) 5,000 people when 250,000 people live in the 3 urban areas?

In all urban areas it would work (the desires of 300,000 in London wouldn't be so that different from each other), but some serious thought about rural areas, especially those close to significant towns, would need to be given.

 

[Busaholic]

I’ve noticed most PR supporters are on the left

My MP, Derek Thomas, is a brexiteer Tory and enthusiast for P.R. Many UKIP types also support some form of P.R. for the Commons.

 

[Typhoon]

The new leader has a mandate of however many seats the majority is. Like it or not that’s how parliaments work. You elect your local MP and the party, not the PM.

You elect your local MP <Full Stop>

I realise that in reality many/ most people vote on party lines but it is the actual candidate that is sent to Westminster, not a representative of a party.
If an MP switches to another party - and there has been a lot of that in the last five years - there is no need for a by-election; if that MP is no longer in a position to represent the constituency for whatever reason, there does as it was the person that was elected, not the party.

You are right, we certainly don't elect the PM; if we did we would have that clown for another couple of years even though (I would suggest) they would be able to hold a cabinet meeting in the average sitting room, the way things were going.

 

[jfollows]

Peter Bone - Deputy Leader of the House of Commons - joke appointment to reward him for his constant and consistent sycophancy from the back benches. To a post which has been invented because it's unnecessary and didn't exist until now anyway.

 

[Busaholic]

Peter Bone - Deputy Leader of the House of Commons - joke appointment to reward him for his constant and consistent sycophancy from the back benches. To a post which has been invented because it's unnecessary and didn't exist until now anyway.

Why do these positions go to the dreggiest of dregs amongst politicians? It shows utter contempt for the concept of parliamentary democracy. Bonehead, Leadballoon and Rees-Smug, others I'm glad to say I've forgotten.

 

[Annetts key]

PR would be a disaster for Westminster.

And exactly how many political parties existed when our current election system was introduced?

The current first past the post system is one of the first systems. Since it’s introduction, more representative systems have been developed. There will never be a perfect system, but desperately holding on to an out of date old system, is akin to rejecting modern lifestyles.

This is off topic, so if this discussion is to continue, maybe replies should be in a new topic.

 

[HST274]

One of the big problems with PR is the rise of extremist parties. By only giving seats to parties > 5% of the vote they (I believe) fixed this in Western Gemrnay after the war. Also it took the wall street crash for the Nazis to actually reach power with PR.

 

[JamesT]

You are right, we certainly don't elect the PM; if we did we would have that clown for another couple of years even though (I would suggest) they would be able to hold a cabinet meeting in the average sitting room, the way things were going.

Yes, a presidential system puts a divide between executive and legislature, so the cabinet in the US isn’t drawn from Congress. Trump was well known for having a rapid turnover of his cabinet.
But also as we’ve seen from the US, when the executive and legislature are at loggerheads then you end up with paralysis as nobody can agree to do anything.

 

[jfollows]

Why do these positions go to the dreggiest of dregs amongst politicians? It shows utter contempt for the concept of parliamentary democracy. Bonehead, Leadballoon and Rees-Smug, others I'm glad to say I've forgotten.

Chris Bryant on Peter Bone's appointment: "There's no depths satire can't reach."

 

[Typhoon]

Peter Bone - Deputy Leader of the House of Commons - joke appointment to reward him for his constant and consistent sycophancy from the back benches. To a post which has been invented because it's unnecessary and didn't exist until now anyway.

I'm sorry to say it did. Johnson seems to have done away with it, but prior to that Heaton-Harris, Spencer and Ellis served under May, Coffey served under Cameron, during the coalition it was Tom Brake (understandable, they had to give LibDems a job where they could do no harm).
Incidentally when the hapless Michael Ellis was defending the indefensible in the Commons the other day, as far as I could see Bone rose at every opportunity but may not have called by Hoyle.

Chris Bryant on Peter Bone's appointment: "There's no depths satire can't reach."

Ill advised, Bryant was Deputy Leader of the House of Commons between Oct 2008 and Jun 2009; he was on the way up though!

 

[Sorcerer]

One of the big problems with PR is the rise of extremist parties. By only giving seats to parties > 5% of the vote they (I believe) fixed this in Western Gemrnay after the war. Also it took the wall street crash for the Nazis to actually reach power with PR.

There is little credible evidence to support this assertion.

 

[Yew]

We've suffered over the years just as much from having a total lack of decent opposition as we have from having the current Tory party in power. A decent opposition may have been able to hold the Tories to account at some time.

It's hard to oppose the neoliberal economic consensus when such criticisms are met with vitriolic abuse and downright lies from our billionaire-owned right wing press.

 

[matacaster]

Got some bad news for you on that front...

Sir Keir Starmer cleared by police over Durham lockdown beers

The Labour leader says he would have quit if he had been fined as a "matter of principle".

www.bbc.co.uk

This is intruiging. Labour secretly wanted Boris to stay as they could always dig up a new Tory sleeze / lying headline. Meanwhile the Tories were desperately hoping that Keir Starmer and his common sidekick would be found not guilty.

 

[najaB]

Meanwhile the Tories were desperately hoping that Keir Starmer and his common sidekick would be found not guilty.

Then why was it the Tory-supporting press that was pushing the matter?

 

[Gloster]

This is intruiging. Labour secretly wanted Boris to stay as they could always dig up a new Tory sleeze / lying headline. Meanwhile the Tories were desperately hoping that Keir Starmer and his common sidekick would be found not guilty.

How charming. You failed to mention that she is female as well. (Or was this intended to be satire?)

 

[jfollows]

I'm sorry to say it did. Johnson seems to have done away with it, but prior to that Heaton-Harris, Spencer and Ellis served under May, Coffey served under Cameron, during the coalition it was Tom Brake (understandable, they had to give LibDems a job where they could do no harm).
Incidentally when the hapless Michael Ellis was defending the indefensible in the Commons the other day, as far as I could see Bone rose at every opportunity but may not have called by Hoyle.

Ill advised, Bryant was Deputy Leader of the House of Commons between Oct 2008 and Jun 2009; he was on the way up though!

Good intelligence, thanks!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How charming. You failed to mention that she is female as well. (Or was this intended to be satire?)

I think that the word he was stressing was "common".

 

[Typhoon]

Good intelligence, thanks!

Sorry, I thought the role existed during the coalition, the rest is down to Wiki!

 

[Shrop]

It will be interesting to know, when all candidates have declared their wish to stand, how many of them failed to vote No Confidence when they had the chance. Those who voted for him to stay were complicit in his lies and deceit, so there must a school of thought which says they're not fit to stand now.