Liz Truss and the Conservative Party.

[Acfb]

Perhaps the conferences should just be cancelled for this year.

Certainly if the Lib Dems have cancelled theirs, for fairness the others should probably be cancelled too. Otherwise, the Tories, let's say, are getting media coverage for their conference when the Lib Dems did not.

The problem with the party conference season is how the Conservatives always get to go last anyway (at least out of the main three).

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Sorry, I didn't mean trying to re-arrange this year's events, I know it's far too late. I meant in future do we need a three week recess, or would one or two weeks be sufficient as I cannot see any reason the conferences cannot overlap.

It's an interesting idea. I think my concern would be that, if they overlapped, it would mean that the parties would be directly competing with each other to get the media to cover their conference instead of their opponents' simultaneous conference. That would give a huge incentive to all the parties to use their conference for dramatic, populist/wacky announcements just so they become the conference that gets the media coverage. My suspicion is that wouldn't help mature politics With the current system, each party knows that, almost whatever happens, it has its 4-5 days when it is guaranteed the main political focus, so there's less incentive for that. Also, simultaneous conferences would probably hurt smaller parties that would find it harder to compete for coverage.

I don't think the 3 weeks of conferences does much harm. This year is very unusual because of change of PM, the Queen's passing, and all the other crises. But in a more typical year, the Parliamentary recess would give MPs a chance to do constituency work etc.

 

[Gloster]

The problem with the party conference season is how the Conservatives always get to go last anyway (at least out of the main three).

I think that the convention is that the the governing party, whichever it is, goes last. For too many years it means that it has therefore had to be the Conservatives.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

I think that the convention is that the the governing party, whichever it is, goes last. For too many years it means that it has therefore had to be the Conservatives.

Long may that continue.

 

[birchesgreen]

Its about time they held their conferences in the summer recess not during term time.

 

[najaB]

Its about time they held their conferences in the summer recess not during term time.

If they moved the Conservative conference to the summer, that would ruin the getaway to the house in the south of France.

 

[JamesT]

Its about time they held their conferences in the summer recess not during term time.

Isn't one of the reasons for choosing that time of year that the accommodation in the seaside resorts that are traditionally used is all empty? Where would they go if that wasn't available?

 

[Mojo]

I think that the convention is that the the governing party, whichever it is, goes last. For too many years it means that it has therefore had to be the Conservatives.

Afraid that isn’t correct. The order doesn’t change regardless of who’s in power.

E.g. 2008 you can search and see Gordon Brown’s speech was on Sept 23rd and David Cameron’s speech was on October 1st.

 

[nw1]

Back to the general discussion on the government: interesting that there appears to be no role for either Patel or Raab. Given both of these seem to be "on-message" and both are "Britannia Unchained" comrades, any reason for their lack of retention?

Guessing there was a desire to remove the cabinet of "Johnsonists" for good-publicity purposes (while replacing them with others with similar political views, so not actually changing anything...)

 

[Mojo]

Back to the general discussion on the government: interesting that there appears to be no role for either Patel or Raab. Given both of these seem to be "on-message" and both are "Britannia Unchained" comrades, any reason for their lack of retention?

Raab was not a surprise given he was an open Sunak supporter.

Patel meanwhile said plenty of great things about how to deal with things like the illegal immigration crisis but did absolutely nothing.

 

[najaB]

Back to the general discussion on the government: interesting that there appears to be no role for either Patel or Raab. Given both of these seem to be "on-message" and both are "Britannia Unchained" comrades, any reason for their lack of retention?

Where Patel is concerned, I think even the PM recognises that she's toxic and keeping her on the front bench reduces the already bleak electoral prospect for 2024.

 

[MikeWM]

Its about time they held their conferences in the summer recess not during term time.

Well, they always did, the 'summer' recess used to go on into October. Sitting for 2-3 weeks in September is a fairly recent practice, it only started in 2003.

Whether that was a good idea or not could be debated, but we seemed to have fewer emergencies in the past than now, or at least fewer emergencies that we expected the government to somehow solve for us with some immediate action or other.

 

[Typhoon]

Back to the general discussion on the government: interesting that there appears to be no role for either Patel or Raab. Given both of these seem to be "on-message" and both are "Britannia Unchained" comrades, any reason for their lack of retention?

Guessing there was a desire to remove the cabinet of "Johnsonists" for good-publicity purposes (while replacing them with others with similar political views, so not actually changing anything...)

Where Patel is concerned, I think even the PM recognises that she's toxic and keeping her on the front bench reduces the already bleak electoral prospect for 2024.

Patel - quite right. Pattern of failure. Home Office is difficult at the best of times but it started with bullying, no progress with migrant dinghies, Mail headline recently 'Have police given up on burglary?' She is not directly responsible but she is in post. Previous track record was pretty mediocre and any job she was given would be seen as demotion. Best out of it.

Raab - has he actually achieved anything? Current problems with the courts don't help. Again, anything would have been demotion.

Others, who have stayed, don't have a very good track record but they tend to be low profile; Patel and Raab weren't.

Barclay is more of an interesting case. Less high profile, the man Johnson moved into a post when he needed reliability (and less likely to take advantage than Gove).

Raab was not a surprise given he was an open Sunak supporter.

Patel meanwhile said plenty of great things about how to deal with things like the illegal immigration crisis but did absolutely nothing.

Woops, sorry, didn't see this!

 

[SynthD]

Patel meanwhile said plenty of great things about how to deal with things like the illegal immigration crisis but did absolutely nothing.

That is why we expect her to have a major cabinet role. Who is going to be the one throwing dead cats onto the table when things go pear shaped?

 

[Domh245]

Where Patel is concerned, I think even the PM recognises that she's toxic and keeping her on the front bench reduces the already bleak electoral prospect for 2024.

An argument that falls apart when you realise she's been replaced with Suella Braverman!

 

[DelayRepay]

Guessing there was a desire to remove the cabinet of "Johnsonists" for good-publicity purposes (while replacing them with others with similar political views, so not actually changing anything...)

It's possible that both Raab and Patel were happy to be removed. I think they both have leadership ambitions. They probably realise that Liz Truss will struggle to win the next election, and perhaps think their leadership bids will be more fruitful if they're not tainted by being part of her government.

I would be making the above comment regardless of who was leader. I think the external circumstances would work against any government in the 2024 general election. And I would bet my mortgage that even if Truss does win, it will closer to May's result in 2017 than Johnson's in 2019. In those circumstances I think the party will be looking for a replacement leader.

 

[Gloster]

Raab appears to be worried about his seat as it is seems to be high on the LibDems’ list of scalps. It is not likely to be a LD gain, but it is certainly a possibility, particularly with Raab’s propensity for saying or doing the wrong thing. Not being a member of an unpopular government and even, just possibly, mildly criticising from the back-benches would be to his advantage.

 

[nw1]

Raab appears to be worried about his seat as it is seems to be high on the LibDems’ list of scalps. It is not likely to be a LD gain, but it is certainly a possibility, particularly with Raab’s propensity for saying or doing the wrong thing.

Given the sub-3000 majority I'm not so sure it's "not likely" to be an LD gain, particularly if tactical voting goes on and Labour stands aside. More people voted Labour (2838) than Raab's majority (2743). So essentially, in Esher and Walton, more people voted for Add to that the (lack of) the Johnson factor (which worked for the Tories in 2019) and I suspect that the Lib Dems have a really good chance of taking it.

If I were a Tory supporter and advising Raab, I'd suggest he looked for a new seat. Such as in Reigate down the road, which looks to be vacant.

 

[Busaholic]

I think that the convention is that the the governing party, whichever it is, goes last. For too many years it means that it has therefore had to be the Conservatives.

I'm not at all sure that is true. The Labour conference traditionally takes place last week in September and the Tory one first week in October. My late wife and her colleague working for a large UK company took it in turns to 'cover' those two conferences, so one to Labour then the other to the Conservative, swapping round the following year, and that covered both Tory and Labour years in government. In an age before mobile phones, I'd be fielding landline calls for days afterwards from MPs she'd met, some quite persistent!

 

[Bald Rick]

In an age before mobile phones, I'd be fielding landline calls for days afterwards from MPs she'd met, some quite persistent!

I hope they were ringing in an entirely professional capacity!

 

[Busaholic]

I hope they were ringing in an entirely professional capacity!

Allegedly, even the female one!

 

[brad465]

Not sure Liz Truss would like to hear some Australian commentators were unaware of who she is:

https://twitter.com/SpillerOfTea/status/1571850200418865156

I present, for your viewing pleasure, footage of Liz Truss getting out of a car, and Australian media being like, “Who the f**k is that?” Perfect.

Video attached

 

[GusB]

Not sure Liz Truss would like to hear some Australian commentators were unaware of who she is:

https://twitter.com/SpillerOfTea/status/1571850200418865156

Video attached

I saw a clip on YouTube from the Guardian that described her as a "minor royal"!

 

[Gloster]

I saw a clip on YouTube from the Guardian that described her as a "minor royal"!

She would probably object to the word ‘minor’.

 

[DarloRich]

Will someone PLEASE get Truss some public speaking training. ffs.

 

[nw1]

She would probably object to the word ‘minor’.

She would probably object to the word 'royal', too (1994 and all that...)

President (of the non-ceremonial type), on the other hand...

 

[BrianW]

Truss is weird. I would not describe Charles as awkward but perhaps repressed. I think he want to emote and open himself up more but his training/education Perhaps as King he will feel comfortable being more expressive or "authentic"

Truss is wierd? That's outrageous I dare say she'll get speech training. She's now had the 'opportunity' of giving a Bible reading from the pulpit of Westminster Abbey- reminded me weirdly of her icon from Grantham spouting words of Francis of Assisi on the steps of Downing Street.

King Charles- a lot of his father in him, and he in William. Fearing gently for George- he's only 9; his dad was 15 when following his mother's coffin. Thanking God for the steadying influences of Kate and Camilla.

Back to the general discussion on the government: interesting that there appears to be no role for either Patel or Raab. Given both of these seem to be "on-message" and both are "Britannia Unchained" comrades, any reason for their lack of retention?

Guessing there was a desire to remove the cabinet of "Johnsonists" for good-publicity purposes (while replacing them with others with similar political views, so not actually changing anything...)

The current PM is stressing 'delivery'; Raab and Patel failed to deliver (they're not alone in that). I'm surprised to see nothing on Anne-Marie Trevelyan the Secretary of State for Trainsport- maybe she's on another thread? Any thoughts/ hopes beyond the A66?

I have a feeling that policies (!) are going to be determined in number 11 anyway- business as usual, aka Treasury Orthodoxy by another name.

More controversially perhaps- sorry- I see 'the unions' being blamed for Britain's 'troubles' and rail suffering the same fate as mining, steel and shipbuilding, aka 'the north'. Money for consultants perhaps to review and rereview 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' but only spades in the ground where work is already committed and is expected to win votes.

Watching Heathrow and a JCB from Uxbridge, and HS2 and a JCB from South Ruislip

 

[nw1]

The current PM is stressing 'delivery'; Raab and Patel failed to deliver (they're not alone in that).

I doubt Truss will deliver anything either, to be quite frank. However someone else said Raab was a Sunakist (and there's only one thing worse than a socialist, and that's a Sunakist) and kicking out Patel is good PR, even if her replacement is very much the same kind of thing.

I'm surprised to see nothing on Anne-Marie Trevelyan the Secretary of State for Trainsport- maybe she's on another thread? Any thoughts/ hopes beyond the A66?

Who?

A related point - evidently no retention of Shapps in that case. While I'm not a fan of his, I don't think he was exceptionally bad in the role; was he another Sunak supporter?

 

[JamesT]

King Charles- a lot of his father in him, and he in William. Fearing gently for George- he's only 9; his dad was 15 when following his mother's coffin. Thanking God for the steadying influences of Kate and Camilla.

I don’t think it will be quite the same for George. Losing (great) granny who was getting on is a bit more removed than losing your mother suddenly. As you say, they also had Catherine with them all the time and travelled in the car often rather than walking.

The current PM is stressing 'delivery'; Raab and Patel failed to deliver (they're not alone in that). I'm surprised to see nothing on Anne-Marie Trevelyan the Secretary of State for Trainsport- maybe she's on another thread? Any thoughts/ hopes beyond the A66?

I have a feeling that policies (!) are going to be determined in number 11 anyway- business as usual, aka Treasury Orthodoxy by another name.

More controversially perhaps- sorry- I see 'the unions' being blamed for Britain's 'troubles' and rail suffering the same fate as mining, steel and shipbuilding, aka 'the north'. Money for consultants perhaps to review and rereview 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' but only spades in the ground where work is already committed and is expected to win votes.

Watching Heathrow and a JCB from Uxbridge, and HS2 and a JCB from South Ruislip

I think the choice to fund the energy cap through borrowing shows at least some pushback against the orthodoxy. We’ll have to see if Kwarteng’s ‘budget’ this week addresses spending or just taxation.

 

[nw1]

'

I think the choice to fund the energy cap through borrowing shows at least some pushback against the orthodoxy. We’ll have to see if Kwarteng’s ‘budget’ this week addresses spending or just taxation.

... and how do we pay the money back, without enduring savage spending cuts in say two or three years' time?

These proposals need to be costed. I'd like to see the global energy mega-corporations contribute something towards the cost, as, I believe, Labour are proposing.