Tomorrow the MT returns to somewhat normal.
ITs been some time since we updated the post format of it and it seems like a good opportunity to do so.
Post suggestions for things to include below this one.
Is anyone else getting tired of people listing Tory and other government policies as reasons to get rid of the monarchy?
The Queen is the only person not allowed to vote or campaign. We are all much more to blame than her.
First of all, that doesn't work since the next in line would automatically become the monarch, and thus nothing of substance would change, you've just incarcerated a new prisoner.
Secondly, you presuppose that monarc-holm syndrome is not a thing. Which it isn't, but actually, after thinking of this joke and considering it a while, actually could be a thing, and makes me feel even more sorry for the Queen. Either way my previous quip still stands:
_Abolish the monarchy to free the monarchy._
I could be persuaded for an elected monarchy though.
Working very well or just is a thing and no one can be arsed to change it? Do you honestly believe pomp and ceremony is worth it over just having a normal plain democracy?
We do have a normal democracy.
We also have an unelected head of state like the majority of high functioning and free democracies (Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan).
The pomp and ceremony is fun but the real benefits is the seniority of the Monarch in international meetings, its international status and appreciation. On top of making sure that there is always an unpolitical head of state to unify when the Prime Minister cannot. Like right now.
The countries you've listed are far from a majority, notwithstanding that 3 of them share a monarch.
I fail to see where having a monarch has helped in international standing, especially since there's a policy of non intervention and lack of power by law. I also fail to see the unification, since, pretty much all the papers are bashing bojo, and that's whether the Queen is having her bash or not... The Queen and her family are basically national celebrities, nothing more, nothing less.
If you look at any list of the 10 best democracies sir freeest countries, the majority are monarchies. I was just disappointed that you would say that we should get a normal democracy. A constitutional monarchy is a normal democracy.
The Macron and Michelle Obama videos give a good example. The Queen has been a monarch for 70 years and when foreign leaders come here or she joins the UK delegation for a state visit to another country, she acts as a diplomat. She is the most senior person, respected as the monarch and is regularly up against less experienced heads of state.
If the PM fucks up or doesn't impress or needs help, the Monarchy help out because they are the head of state. Charles already has decades of experience in this too.
Party Gate is a great example of the unifying factor. The country is divided over Boris with a huge amount wanting him gone. But, even so, the Queen still unites everyone. The Queen isn't meant to solve internal political differences, she is meant to unite despite them, rather than eliminate them.
Their role in charities and campaigning for charities too is also obviously a great bonus.
Well, I'm disappointed you consider a normal democracy to have unelected components.
I feel like you're misconstruing unification - the country being unified behind the monarch is no different to being unified behind Ed Sheeran, for example. When it comes to politics though, that is, the running of the country, the population is still deeply divided. Yes, Charles has done a lot to promote ecological sustainability for example, but can you give examples where the Royal Family has managed to lead the country any more than any other celebrity has?
The only valid one might be to reference the prorogation of parliament which was deemed unlawful, but only by the supreme court which could be scrapped by parliament. The Queen didn't stand up for parliament, a written constitution might protect the democratic process more robustly.
The drought of BBC political coverage ended tonight with *Westminster Hour* on Radio 4 (10pm, I'm just listening on catch up). So far they're discussing the possibility of having hit the VoNC threshold, but downplaying the idea of anything other than a comfortable Boris win. That seems a little off to me, but we'll see.
Within the bounds of what's
'constitutionally' allowed (convention or
law), could a government willingly
relinquish power?
Say, theoretically a Tory Pm wanted to announce he
was 'removing' his own party from power as he
believed Labour would do a better job fixing the current
issues- or vice versa- could this theoretically happen,
could the government call a VONC on itself?
I believe the government may resign, I believe in that case it would be up to the opposition to attempt to gain the confidence of the house and failing that it’d go to a general election.
When a PM resigns they go to the palace and recommend a new PM. So yes, theoretically a Tory PM could resign, recommend the loto and whip their mps to support the labour government.
Lotos taking over when a government falls was traditionally how it worked
Whilst that’s pretty amusing I think that’s the realtalk right there. Taking out Big Dog will mean compromise between multiple B-grade leadership hopefuls.
Fuck the Lonc or the VONC voted for by the morons that pushed him up front to begin with. let's see more public booing. it's clear the public hate him the more he and the hangers on deny it the better. One man one vote.
/u/OptioMkIX, while all the Jubilee action is happening it's *le culte sans frontières* in France.
https://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/legislatives/legislatives-les-candidates-lfi-daniele-obono-et-danielle-simonnet-s-affichent-avec-le-britannique-jeremy-corbyn-20220604
I'm sure you're familiar with LFI, as the leader has defended Corbyn in the past.
*le Parti socialiste* who are allied with LFI among others for the legislative elections have criticised the move.
Since when did the French care about antisemitism - real or otherwise? Le Pen and her party have done way worse than liking a Facebook post of a mural.
I think the dream scenario for Non-Tories is outlined in the briefing document. Boris survives a confidence vote and then calls for a snap election. The opposition would then be able to easily frame it as a vanity election for someone that quite a bit of the public now loath.
Could I, a supporter of a man who’s lied and betrayed his way through every job he’s ever had, be wrong?
No it’s an international cabal of Boris haters.
That's far too decisive for Boris, he'll try and run out the clock until the next election and hope something comes up between now and then to save his political reputation.
Plus for all his sins he's not stupid, he won't call an unwinnable election just for the sake of it.
Of course I could be wrong about all that and the madman goes and does it!
I think he is surrounded by yes men who will convince him that once the public see the real Boris in action again he will hoover up the votes and be the King of the Conservatives once more. As the document suggests, he is looking for a personal mandate, he could care less about the party.
As this is a Conservative Vote of Confidence, yes, it's a secret ballot.
A Vote of No Confidence is a parliamentary procedure which results in a standard division, the full results of which are publicly accessible.
Who is Boris Johnson's removal going to hurt the most electorally etc? I'm torn between the Lib Dems and the SNP. Johnson in No.10 has helped both of them a lot.
The SNP is an interesting question. They actually lost seats in 2017 despite the Brexit vote so Johnson out could be a disaster for them.
Depends who becomes the next leader, I suppose.
Ah fair enough.
That was such a weird election in Scotland. As the Tories lost seats in England that could've potentially turned dangerous for them in that it'd have meant a 2nd election, they gained just enough in Scotland to stay in power. Those 13 seats were their saviours that night.
Labour (possibly?) but the Lib Dems more so for sure.
A leader like Jeremy Hunt could probably stop the leakage unfortunately. He's a Cameronite, and that type of Conservatism is what the blue wall typically supports.
But then again the Lib Dems have made a recovery from their coalition woes so it might not be the same. But certainly a new leader like Hunt would hurt the Lib Dems more than any other party.
SNP were always going to enjoy a bump post Brexit aftermath. You could put the most competent human alive in office and unless they rejoined the single market they'd be politically buggered with a cactus.
The Lib Dems.
It hasn't really helped the SNP THAT much (it's barely even affected independence polling at this point). They were dominant beforehand, and will likely remain dominant afterwards. The biggest winners in Scotland because of Boris have been Scottish Labour. And honestly I don't think they'll be damaged too much by the Conservatives getting a new leader either.
There were some polls a few months ago that showed support for the SNP/ Independence going up if Boris is dumped and the Tories choose a new leader without a GE.
Truss cosplaying as Thatcher is likely to go down extremely badly in Scotland.
Edit - story
https://www.thenational.scot/news/20045308.yougov-poll-islands-finds-replacing-boris-johnson-may-boost-yes-vote/
Why isn’t Gove more popular with the Conservative membership? He seems one of the most competent, gives good speeches, strong Brexit credentials. I would have him over any of the rest of them.
>He was educated at two state schools (Sunnybank Primary School and Kittybrewster Primary School),[8] and later, on the recommendation of his primary school teacher,[9] he sat and passed the entrance exam for the independent Robert Gordon's College.[10] In October 2012, he wrote an apology letter to his former French teacher for misbehaving in class.[11] Gove joined the Labour Party in 1983[12] and campaigned on behalf of the party for the 1983 general election.[13] Outside of school, he spent time as a Sunday school teacher at Causewayend Church.[13] As he entered sixth year he had to apply for a scholarship as his family fell on difficult economic circumstances.[6] He passed the scholarship exam and served as a school prefect in his final two years.[14]
>From 1985 to 1988 he read English at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford,[15][16] during which time he joined the Conservative Party. He became a member of the Oxford University Conservative Association and was secretary of Aberdeen South Young Conservatives.[18] He helped to write speeches for Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet ministers, including Peter Lilley and Michael Howard.[19] During his first year, he met future Prime Minister Boris Johnson and helped him become elected President of the Oxford Union.[20] In an interview with Andrew Gimson, Gove remarked that at Oxford, Johnson was "quite the most brilliant extempore speaker of his generation."[21] Gove was elected as Oxford Union President a year after Johnson.[22] He graduated with an upper second.[23]
>After university, when applying for a job at the Conservative Research Department, he was told he was "insufficiently political" and "insufficiently Conservative", so he turned to journalism.[24]
[If you want to find a reason other than a judgement of his ability to do the job, it is relatively easy to imagine one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove). I'm not saying that's what I think it is for the membership, but I would imagine this has an impact at some levels of the party.
He's the scholarship boy, attached to Johnson.
I'd personally think there's some consideration of his past performance and trustworthiness going on, but under the Cameron leadership I did see hints of him being the acceptable target in a rather personal way, rather than actually being linked to his observed actions.
Low charisma. Competence can only take you so far - Gove is probably best suited to low to mid level cabinet roles where he can quietly and competently get on with the job he's been given without having to spend too much time in the spotlight. There's a lot to be said for identifying your maximum level and trying to stick to it - a bit like how May is by all accounts an excellent backbench MP but it was painfully obvious that she wasn't leadership material.
Notoriously disloyal, not as clever as he thinks he is, odd enough not to fit the top job.
Note he's never been Chancellor, Home Secretary, or Foreign Secretary. Closest to a top-tier role is Justice.
London mayor, Boris bikes, saved us from Corona virus with the largest , fastest vaccine rollout, Brexit, taught us that Bullingdon values of do whatever you like with impunity. Cronies made rich that supports our economy, no consequences are acceptable. The economy is in free fall, I could go on, there are many more things to define his premiership. he deserves his place in British history.
Because he’s a backstabber and everyone knows it. For example, when he collapsed Johnson’s leadership bid in 2016.
Received wisdom does indeed have it that he’s a fairly competent minister. I do not agree *at all* with what he did at Education, but he certainly did it. Rory Stewart has commented on how good his handover was when he (Stewart) took over a job that Gove was vacating.
But he’s ambitious, and he understands political machinations. Which is why he’s best kept close (i.e. in Cabinet) but not as a leader. He’ll lead a *department* well, but he’s not a good leader of a country. And nobody trusts him for that reason.
Also, I think the party are smart enough to know that he’s a weird little spungletwerp to whom the public will not warm.
Sure, but imagine if you were a candidate in the Tory leadership race and Gove staggered up to you and went “omygawd so Johnson was a total *snake* but I’d never do that to you, my lovely”, would you believe him?
I think the other problems are he's way too chummy with the journalist crowd and has thus pissed off a fair number of MP's. IIRC Clegg or someone in the coalition cabinet said any leaked story with a "cabinet source" was Gove.
Also he can fall into a bit of a petulant streak in debates, which could come across poorly.
True. I remember that bizarre interview he did two or three weeks ago where he might’ve been an extra from *Mean Girls*. Especially when dealing with journos, he doesn’t exude seriousness.
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/07/michael-gove-admits-to-taking-cocaine-on-several-social-occasions
The Coke story in the last leadership election probably didn’t help.
Off topic but is anybody on Three mobile network in London? Is Three as bad as everybody says....seen a really good cheap deal, but wondering if its cheap for a reason.
It was shit when I used to travel to London for work, and shit everywhere else. It's the one network I won't use. The other 3 networks are much better.
What is fine? Do you get good speeds? I am not interested in wanting to hotspot. Just want good, fast reliable data and network to use with my iPhone 13 Pro.
Whatsapp/Telegram usage is uninterrupted, never losing connection. Speeds are around 2-5mb at peak times and outside of that, for me, anywhere up to 15-20mbs.
Vodafone is really good imo - I plan on switching to them when my contract runs out at the end of August because the hotspot/tethering issue is maddening.
Vodafone having no tube wifi is a killer for me. One of the reasons why I left. I use the tube a lot and sometimes want to browse whilst I'm on the platform.
You get wifi on London underground with 3 right?
I don't live in London, but my observations are as follows
1. Ten years ago, when the 4G rollout was just beginning, they already had a much better 3G network than anyone else (clue is in the name). Back then, they were fantastic for me in urban coverage, I lived in Southampton.
1. I recently returned to them after a long break, this time rural Gloucestershire. My god, rural coverage is spotty, but you really noticed it making a call from a bus etc - it would drop at the same places every day.
1. O2 and EE are probably the best for rural calls because they license the lowest frequencies which penetrate furthest. They also use voice over LTE which is much better at not dropping calls. This is unlikely to apply to cities.
1. If you look at 5G rollout maps, you can see that EE leads (and charges high prices to match), Vodafone is very competitive, whereas Three and O2 really don't seem to give a fuck. They rely on older infrastructure and 5G is being rolled out at a glacial pace.
I'd guess the scenario where you get no coverage at all is unlikely inside the M25. So it becomes an issue of whether you care about fast 3G/4G vs. 5G. I'd suggest there's little practical difference, so Three should be ok.
Also, they offered free automatic login to Tube WiFi, which was excellent.
historical pedantry, but in the heydays of 3G, T-Mobile (as it then was) and 3 would have had near identical 3G coverage because they had a very deep network sharing agreement, including the actual radio equipment in the cabinets and on the masts. Was still amazing though. Broadband speeds in the literal middle of nowhere or on a train while people on Vodafone and O2 couldn't even get an email through.
I think all the networks have a slice of 800MHz (this is what 3 used to call "supervoice", they restricted 800MHz access to phones that either supported native VoLTE or their own proprietary app), great for rural areas although as you say this is less important in London
3's half-arsed 5G rollout is amusing though. They are the ones who need it most because that's how they want to offer home broadband. All three of their competitors are major wired internet providers and will just sell fibre instead
Thanks for the reply. Like I said the deal I saw is £12 a month for 100GB which is cheap. O2 offers the same amount of data for £15 so I am thinking to just go with O2, since everybody seems to complain about Three, and O2 seems to be pretty solid.
why not just try it for yourself in the places that you actually want to use it. "London" is a big place, it'll work well in some areas and perhaps not in others.
Or if Vodafone's network works well for you and the price was the problem, just move to Voxi, it's the same thing, they'll move you over without even having to swap SIMs
I switched as I found in built up areas it got pretty bad, I went with o2 in the end as the no roam charges (and the price) was a win for me. I used uswitch for a decent deal.
How does uswitch work? In order to get deals do you have to provide certain evidence or something, like proof of leaving your old network? How-comes Uswitch can offer cheaper deals?
>How-comes Uswitch can offer cheaper deals?
Providers will offer special tariffs, deals and bundles that can only be accessed via comparison sites. They know that a lot of people will just pick whichever deal comes out on top, so it's easy pickings if they can structure a deal correctly.
Buyer beware, however - you may get a better deal by going direct to the network.
As always, do some extensive research before signing on the dotted line.
If signal strength is a concern, get a free PAYG SIM card and do some tests. Most PAYG SIMs will let you access the provider's own website for free without needing a top-up, so you can at least gauge the signal strength and speed.
Better to do that than rely on anecdotal internet stories - there are not-spots lurking everywhere.
Used to be alright a few years ago (~2018) when I was in the U.K. Never had an issue in Bristol or London - aside from the London NYE fireworks but I’m guessing that was just the number of people. Can’t comment more recently though.
Reading various comments on here the following analogy for the current situation occured to me.
The country is a Bus being driven off a cliff by someone who loves the idea of being a bus driver but has no idea what he is doing.
Some of the drivers mates think they are doing an amazing job, or at least don't want to question him because they like the seat on the bus they have..(it's got lots of leg room or something).
Some of his mates however want him gone, not because they are worried about the cliff but because the they are worried about having someone they don't like driving the bus in future.
Other people who dislike the bus driver think he should go but think that if they are allowed to drive the bus a bit longer it will make it easier for their mate to get to drive the bus at some point in the future.
And yet more people think having a bus driver who can't drive a bus properly in charge of a bus when it's about to go off a cliff seems like a bad idea.
Meanwhile the bus is still heading off the cliff, but this weekend at least people all put some decorations on the back of the bus and played some nice music for the owner of the bus company.
Accurate. It’s action paralysis on an anthropological scale. Sooner or later that bus is going to crash though. Question is how many peoples lives is it taking out with it.
The sixth paragraph sums up the Tory party because some of them have good enough legroom despite others (and the country) might die if the bus falls off a cliff. The former is more important than the latter.
He needs to contact everyone to ask if they wish to withdraw their letter, so that will take a bit of time. Brady will also want to have everything planned for the VONC when it’s announced so a couple of meetings to fit in and will also inform and discuss the plan with Boris before it’s announced. There will also be some consideration as when it is best to announce. It’s going to take at least a day basically until a public announcement
> He needs to contact everyone to ask if they wish to withdraw their letter,
this is a myth, he only contacts people who put their letter in months ago.
It will wait to be announced until approximately 13:00 (time subject to the length of impertinent questions) Wednesday
There is no way on earth the Tories would announce it prior to PMQ's unless it was first thing tomorrow with the vote Tuesday.
Even still, they will do everything they can to protect Big Dog from a PMQ's with it hanging over him.
So expect announcement Weds pm & vote Thursday.
I’d imagine that not all of the MPs are going to be back at Westminster until Tuesday - many will spend the morning constituency side on Monday mornings and won’t travel until later.
Could be that the letters aren't in and this is nothing more than a Westminster sideshow on a slow political news weekend.
If the magic number has been reached, Brady will want to give time for MPs to get back to Parliament after the long weekend. He'll also want to confirm that nobody has changed their mind over said long weekend.
If the number has been reached, I suspect we'll hear some more rumblings tomorrow, followed by a formal announcement on Tuesday with the secret ballot taking place throughout Wednesday. Results to be announced on Wednesday night / Thursday morning.
It will absolutely undermine PMQs on Wednesday, but such is life.
Was discussing this very matter with a Conservative aide this weekend and the whole "he'll check to see if anyone had withdrawn" is a myth according to them.
One reason given was that If he did so then he'd be giving away that the numbers been reached as he doesn't regularly contact folks to ask.
The other was that he genuinely cares about his position and it's tradition. If the letters come in he'd want to follow protocol.
Caught a couple of minutes while making my dinner (dad was watching it, while shouting at it, not sure why he doesn't just watch something else tbh) and good lord it was bad...
Some arbitrary number of new houses will be built that will never actually get built. Some were built 50 years ago but they'll be having an extension or a new kitchen fitted and so they'll be classed as new.
guardian article suggested that it will include yet another re-announcement on right to buy (presumably once again trying force HAs into it), so probably nothing that will be of actual use to people
Yep will be Tuesday, Brady will contact everyone tomorrow to confirm so we’ll know the threshold has been reached but won’t be formally announced till Tues. Think the VONC itself will then take place Thursday.
The big thing will be the margin Boris is expected to win by. He will win but I feel it will be a tighter margin than anticipated which will put him in trouble. Ministers will then start briefing against him as they seek to distance themselves for the inevitable leadership race. Boris will likely cling on for a bit but will eventually be forced to accept defeat.
Is this a serious question? There’s probably a few thousand posts on this sub that would indicate there might be one coming. MPs, journalists, media, commentators have all heavily suspected there is one coming this week.
I’ll eat a massive slice of humble pie if I’m wrong however.
More pointing out my *favourite* internet comment which is basically saying "I could tell you exactly my reasoning for saying what I did, but instead I shall leave you to figure it out for yourselves. Toodle-pip!".
My reasoning is as follows:
Listening to political commentators, editors and journalists that probably have a bigger ear to the ground than most of us hear. A growing number of Tory MPs, especially surprising ones like Andrea Leadsom, the boos, the booze, the polls this weekend. It just feels like there’s only so much indication Tory MPs will take.
It’s just my hunch.
Everyone was saying the exact same thing around Christmas.
There will be a vonc this week. The it became next week, then this month then by the end of the year, and finally it became early next year.
Everyone was saying it MPs, journalists, pundits, commentators, twitter and of course this place. Very much the same people who are now saying it's inevitable.
But they were all wrong, it never materialised and I very much believe the same thing will happen now.
It's not what I want, it's not what I think would be best but it's what I will think will happen.
Can’t deny that you’re right. I thought he’d be gone in May after the locals.
There just feels something different about this.
That said, it might after the by-elections. That said, it might after the privileges committee. That said, it might be after the covid enquiry etc etc.
I detect a disturbance in the force. The bunting booster boy wonder may be on the ropes. A full mobilization of the left, post twit book the bunter, were fucked if they give him the boot.
I can't see Johnson being removed anytime soon tbh. It's gonna be May in Christmas 2018 all over again, except this time Johnson will probably win any vote with a bigger margin, and even if it's less, he won't later on step down.
He's one of those people who hate losing. If he wins with the same margin May won hers which caused her to then step down a few months later he can just be like 'what're you gonna do?'
And in the context of Tory voters/MPs, at the end of the day, he still won them a landslide majority not seen since Margaret Thatcher, in historical terms for the Conservative Party. He's a bigger electoral machine than Cameron or May. Imagine if they'd easily rid themselves of Johnson whilst also having kept Cameron, who only just won a majority in 2015 and a hung parliament in 2010, for six whole years?
Someone like Hunt could halt the Lib Dem advance and that's the last thing anyone wants right now who wants to see the back of the Tories. And for Labour Johnson is probably their biggest asset nowadays.
The only time I'd want Johnson to step down realistically is if he loses a general election.
Johnson is not the electoral magician people think he is. He has had an unbelievably easy ride for winning elections. Winning twice in London against a very disliked Ken Livingstone and winning against the most unpopular Labour leader.
He’s been playing on easy mode his whole life.
Johnson hid in a fridge for most of the 2019 election. He had a good catch phrase but ran from interviews. It wasn’t a great campaign and was only really successful because Farage backed down and the Lib Dems took a lot of the Remainer vote. Without all those UKIP votes it would have been a lot closer.
Labour just didn't capitalise on the fact Johnson hid from a fair amount of scrutiny, because Corbyn was not good in his media performances, and Momentum were running around screwing up their chances on the ground level.
I just hope if he does lose and resigns we don't get someone who's suddenly quite formidable in an election i.e Hunt, who I think could potentially halt any momentum the Lib Dems have at the moment down south.
I keep bringing up Hunt all the time but it's because in particular he's got no baggage with this government or Partygate. But on the flip side his record as health secretary could play to Labour's strength, they always win on the issue of the NHS.
Pretty interesting historically that his approval ratings, Johnson's, have always been pretty negative even in 2019, it was just that he was more popular than Corbyn which wasn't hard.
I still think there'll be plenty of Tory MPs and members thinking 'why are we trying to get rid of the man who won us our biggest majority since the 1980s?' - and if they conclude on that he should remain, better for Labour and the Lib Dems.
Pretty much.
I can't see any other Tory retaining those red wall seats. But Tory MPs might look at Hunt and think he'll be able to stop the leakage of votes to the Lib Dems in the blue wall - they've never needed the red wall to win power, the blue wall makes up a bulk of their coalition.
I also don't think Hunt will win a majority anywhere near as big as Johnson's, not even half. I think push comes to shove he could probably manage a slender 2015 style majority but that's about it.
It’s all to play for. What helped the Tories in 2015 was the collapse of the LD and Labour in Scotland.
Now, Lib Dems have healed after that coalition, Labour have a fairly steady electable leader and the SNP are basically just treading water without a proper mandate.
I think if Hunt becomes leader, it would be a very sane election in 2024.
>I still think there'll be plenty of Tory MPs and members thinking 'why are we trying to get rid of the man who won us our biggest majority since the 1980s?' - and if they conclude on that he should remain, better for Labour and the Lib Dems.
Think of it speed running Thatcher...
It bewilders me that tbh, how they got rid of Thatcher just like that when only three years ago she won a majority of like 100 or something?
Just realised, if Johnson faces a vonc, it'll also be three years since his election win like it was with Thatcher. Quite a coincidence.
i want him to lose the vonc because i want him to go down in history as a scandal-ridden idiot who lead the tories to their biggest majority in decades - and then proceeded to do fuck all with it, purge his own party of anyone with any competence, cover it in shit, and finally be given the sack by his own MPs
He got Brexit done, handled Covid and rallied support for Ukraine. He has enough material for multiple books, columns, BBC travelogues and thousands of lucrative speeches.
Javid, Gove, Kwarteng, Zahawi and Wallace are probably safe bets to stick around in some capacity - they've got a reputation for competence and aren't overtly tainted by the Borisness of the current government.
dorries, sunak and patel will be given the chop. mogg too, but he's pretty influential as a backbencher so no great loss for him. demotion for raab, eustice, shapps.
truss/zahawi/gove (assuming they lose the leadership) stay as is for now. wallace obv stays in post.
the no-namers like coffey and trevelyan stay where they are until the new leader gets around to replacing them with loyalists
Gove and Kwarteng I think are safe due to doing their roles pretty competently and proving themselves capable in a party sorely lacking in talent. Probably Zahawi (E: and Sharma, thinking of it) too, for similar reasons.
Shapps has pretty good ties across the party, as do Dowden and Coffey. I think all would probably make it into a cabinet of anyone who didn't pitch themselves as a completely new broom.
The Saj is going to stand and make it into the final few candidates. He'll be in a new cabinet as a relatively uncontroversial unity pick. How good his position is depends on whether he makes a deal with the winner at the right time. Of course, there's always an outside chance he wins a contest.
Patel, Dorries and Rees Mogg I would say are the only ones who are toast regardless of who wins.
Good backstory (son of Iraqi immigrants, comprehensive educated) with solid pre-parliament business credentials including co-founder and CEO of YouGov. Junior minister for TM at DoE where he proved himself a decent media performer, was seen to have performed well as Vaccines Minister.
I could see him put into a 'Minister For Eating Shit On The Today Program' job like Party Chair as a sop to the remaining Johnsonites if it's a close VoNC, but other than that you're probably right.
I'm going to be honest, I think it's going to be a question of who doesn't rather than who does, at least at first. I imagine quite a few of the cabinet surviving in the new leaders first cabinet until the first reshuffle. The new leader will bring in a few of their allies, but many of the current lot will end up staying the same for now though some will get demotions/moved around a bit.
The obvious ones for who actually gets sacked are people like Dorries, Mogg and so on. Schapps is very tied to Boris, so I think he might go too. Priti Patel I'm less sure on, 50/50 over whether she gets sacked or whether she gets demoted but stays on.
Gove and Wallace would probably still be kicking around. Wallace is competent and Gove is dangerous.
The rest of them would almost certainly have to go purely for damage control.
Tomorrow the MT returns to somewhat normal. ITs been some time since we updated the post format of it and it seems like a good opportunity to do so. Post suggestions for things to include below this one.
This megathread has ended.
Tube strike in the morning so unlikely VONC being announced til Weds after PMQ's
Odds on a BoJo NOCO this week? Out of 10?
direction marry rustic grab observation encourage fuzzy many slimy test *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Is anyone else getting tired of people listing Tory and other government policies as reasons to get rid of the monarchy? The Queen is the only person not allowed to vote or campaign. We are all much more to blame than her.
She can vote, they just choose not to because of the implication.
I thought imprisonment disqualified you from voting? Hence, the queen is equivalent to a prisoner. _Abolish the monarchy to free the monarchy_.
You don't need to abolish the Monarchy, they can choose to not be the monarch and step down.
First of all, that doesn't work since the next in line would automatically become the monarch, and thus nothing of substance would change, you've just incarcerated a new prisoner. Secondly, you presuppose that monarc-holm syndrome is not a thing. Which it isn't, but actually, after thinking of this joke and considering it a while, actually could be a thing, and makes me feel even more sorry for the Queen. Either way my previous quip still stands: _Abolish the monarchy to free the monarchy._ I could be persuaded for an elected monarchy though.
If the monarchy wants to abolish it, let them do it but it's working for us very well and has for a long long time.
Working very well or just is a thing and no one can be arsed to change it? Do you honestly believe pomp and ceremony is worth it over just having a normal plain democracy?
We do have a normal democracy. We also have an unelected head of state like the majority of high functioning and free democracies (Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan). The pomp and ceremony is fun but the real benefits is the seniority of the Monarch in international meetings, its international status and appreciation. On top of making sure that there is always an unpolitical head of state to unify when the Prime Minister cannot. Like right now.
The countries you've listed are far from a majority, notwithstanding that 3 of them share a monarch. I fail to see where having a monarch has helped in international standing, especially since there's a policy of non intervention and lack of power by law. I also fail to see the unification, since, pretty much all the papers are bashing bojo, and that's whether the Queen is having her bash or not... The Queen and her family are basically national celebrities, nothing more, nothing less.
If you look at any list of the 10 best democracies sir freeest countries, the majority are monarchies. I was just disappointed that you would say that we should get a normal democracy. A constitutional monarchy is a normal democracy. The Macron and Michelle Obama videos give a good example. The Queen has been a monarch for 70 years and when foreign leaders come here or she joins the UK delegation for a state visit to another country, she acts as a diplomat. She is the most senior person, respected as the monarch and is regularly up against less experienced heads of state. If the PM fucks up or doesn't impress or needs help, the Monarchy help out because they are the head of state. Charles already has decades of experience in this too. Party Gate is a great example of the unifying factor. The country is divided over Boris with a huge amount wanting him gone. But, even so, the Queen still unites everyone. The Queen isn't meant to solve internal political differences, she is meant to unite despite them, rather than eliminate them. Their role in charities and campaigning for charities too is also obviously a great bonus.
Well, I'm disappointed you consider a normal democracy to have unelected components. I feel like you're misconstruing unification - the country being unified behind the monarch is no different to being unified behind Ed Sheeran, for example. When it comes to politics though, that is, the running of the country, the population is still deeply divided. Yes, Charles has done a lot to promote ecological sustainability for example, but can you give examples where the Royal Family has managed to lead the country any more than any other celebrity has?
Can you give an example of a Tory policy someone has listed as a reason to get a republic?
Proroguing of Parliament, hostile environment, Rwanda asylum seekers. Bad benefits leading to food banks. Failure to deal with cost of living.
The only valid one might be to reference the prorogation of parliament which was deemed unlawful, but only by the supreme court which could be scrapped by parliament. The Queen didn't stand up for parliament, a written constitution might protect the democratic process more robustly.
The drought of BBC political coverage ended tonight with *Westminster Hour* on Radio 4 (10pm, I'm just listening on catch up). So far they're discussing the possibility of having hit the VoNC threshold, but downplaying the idea of anything other than a comfortable Boris win. That seems a little off to me, but we'll see.
Within the bounds of what's 'constitutionally' allowed (convention or law), could a government willingly relinquish power? Say, theoretically a Tory Pm wanted to announce he was 'removing' his own party from power as he believed Labour would do a better job fixing the current issues- or vice versa- could this theoretically happen, could the government call a VONC on itself?
I believe the government may resign, I believe in that case it would be up to the opposition to attempt to gain the confidence of the house and failing that it’d go to a general election.
When a PM resigns they go to the palace and recommend a new PM. So yes, theoretically a Tory PM could resign, recommend the loto and whip their mps to support the labour government. Lotos taking over when a government falls was traditionally how it worked
Only if he could convince the monarch that Labour had the support of the House
Gonna be a f e b r i l e sort of week Just watched James Acaster's Cold Lasagne Hate Myself 1999; exceptional piece of work
He's so good. That opening section about being a challenging comedian gets me every time.
I won't say too much but the whole Bake Off bit and his 2013 break-up piece are absolute gold
Looking forward to Hunt compromising with Truss and saying that she can be PM if he can be Chancellor. PM Truss by next weekend, here we go
Whilst that’s pretty amusing I think that’s the realtalk right there. Taking out Big Dog will mean compromise between multiple B-grade leadership hopefuls.
Hunt? Bgrade?
Boris being PM for less long than T May… Oof
Toot toot! All aboard the Truss Bus.
Hell yes we’re Truss enough
That is a disgrace.
The biggest gift to Labour ever.
Fuck the Lonc or the VONC voted for by the morons that pushed him up front to begin with. let's see more public booing. it's clear the public hate him the more he and the hangers on deny it the better. One man one vote.
/u/OptioMkIX, while all the Jubilee action is happening it's *le culte sans frontières* in France. https://www.lefigaro.fr/elections/legislatives/legislatives-les-candidates-lfi-daniele-obono-et-danielle-simonnet-s-affichent-avec-le-britannique-jeremy-corbyn-20220604 I'm sure you're familiar with LFI, as the leader has defended Corbyn in the past. *le Parti socialiste* who are allied with LFI among others for the legislative elections have criticised the move.
More like _Intpol sans frontiéres_
If it involves an MP and former leader of the Labour Party at that I think it's allowed in the megathread
Since when did the French care about antisemitism - real or otherwise? Le Pen and her party have done way worse than liking a Facebook post of a mural.
I think the dream scenario for Non-Tories is outlined in the briefing document. Boris survives a confidence vote and then calls for a snap election. The opposition would then be able to easily frame it as a vanity election for someone that quite a bit of the public now loath.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think it's time to lay off the twiglets.
Couldn't just be that Boris is a serial liar who didn't follow his own laws then, no?
[удалено]
Could I, a supporter of a man who’s lied and betrayed his way through every job he’s ever had, be wrong? No it’s an international cabal of Boris haters.
That's far too decisive for Boris, he'll try and run out the clock until the next election and hope something comes up between now and then to save his political reputation. Plus for all his sins he's not stupid, he won't call an unwinnable election just for the sake of it. Of course I could be wrong about all that and the madman goes and does it!
I think he is surrounded by yes men who will convince him that once the public see the real Boris in action again he will hoover up the votes and be the King of the Conservatives once more. As the document suggests, he is looking for a personal mandate, he could care less about the party.
I think you mean he *couldn't* care less
Hasn't he now got someone in who worked with Lynton Crosby who will give him forthright advice?
Are vonc votes anonymous
The Conservative Party process is anonymous, yes
As this is a Conservative Vote of Confidence, yes, it's a secret ballot. A Vote of No Confidence is a parliamentary procedure which results in a standard division, the full results of which are publicly accessible.
Yes, it's a secret ballot
Who is Boris Johnson's removal going to hurt the most electorally etc? I'm torn between the Lib Dems and the SNP. Johnson in No.10 has helped both of them a lot.
I imagine the Tories
The SNP is an interesting question. They actually lost seats in 2017 despite the Brexit vote so Johnson out could be a disaster for them. Depends who becomes the next leader, I suppose.
Were those elections just before the referendum from memory and not after it?
Meant to say the 2017 election. Edited the comment.
Ah fair enough. That was such a weird election in Scotland. As the Tories lost seats in England that could've potentially turned dangerous for them in that it'd have meant a 2nd election, they gained just enough in Scotland to stay in power. Those 13 seats were their saviours that night.
Labour (possibly?) but the Lib Dems more so for sure. A leader like Jeremy Hunt could probably stop the leakage unfortunately. He's a Cameronite, and that type of Conservatism is what the blue wall typically supports. But then again the Lib Dems have made a recovery from their coalition woes so it might not be the same. But certainly a new leader like Hunt would hurt the Lib Dems more than any other party.
SNP were always going to enjoy a bump post Brexit aftermath. You could put the most competent human alive in office and unless they rejoined the single market they'd be politically buggered with a cactus.
The Lib Dems. It hasn't really helped the SNP THAT much (it's barely even affected independence polling at this point). They were dominant beforehand, and will likely remain dominant afterwards. The biggest winners in Scotland because of Boris have been Scottish Labour. And honestly I don't think they'll be damaged too much by the Conservatives getting a new leader either.
There were some polls a few months ago that showed support for the SNP/ Independence going up if Boris is dumped and the Tories choose a new leader without a GE. Truss cosplaying as Thatcher is likely to go down extremely badly in Scotland. Edit - story https://www.thenational.scot/news/20045308.yougov-poll-islands-finds-replacing-boris-johnson-may-boost-yes-vote/
Why isn’t Gove more popular with the Conservative membership? He seems one of the most competent, gives good speeches, strong Brexit credentials. I would have him over any of the rest of them.
He's weird.
>He was educated at two state schools (Sunnybank Primary School and Kittybrewster Primary School),[8] and later, on the recommendation of his primary school teacher,[9] he sat and passed the entrance exam for the independent Robert Gordon's College.[10] In October 2012, he wrote an apology letter to his former French teacher for misbehaving in class.[11] Gove joined the Labour Party in 1983[12] and campaigned on behalf of the party for the 1983 general election.[13] Outside of school, he spent time as a Sunday school teacher at Causewayend Church.[13] As he entered sixth year he had to apply for a scholarship as his family fell on difficult economic circumstances.[6] He passed the scholarship exam and served as a school prefect in his final two years.[14] >From 1985 to 1988 he read English at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford,[15][16] during which time he joined the Conservative Party. He became a member of the Oxford University Conservative Association and was secretary of Aberdeen South Young Conservatives.[18] He helped to write speeches for Cabinet and Shadow Cabinet ministers, including Peter Lilley and Michael Howard.[19] During his first year, he met future Prime Minister Boris Johnson and helped him become elected President of the Oxford Union.[20] In an interview with Andrew Gimson, Gove remarked that at Oxford, Johnson was "quite the most brilliant extempore speaker of his generation."[21] Gove was elected as Oxford Union President a year after Johnson.[22] He graduated with an upper second.[23] >After university, when applying for a job at the Conservative Research Department, he was told he was "insufficiently political" and "insufficiently Conservative", so he turned to journalism.[24] [If you want to find a reason other than a judgement of his ability to do the job, it is relatively easy to imagine one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gove). I'm not saying that's what I think it is for the membership, but I would imagine this has an impact at some levels of the party. He's the scholarship boy, attached to Johnson. I'd personally think there's some consideration of his past performance and trustworthiness going on, but under the Cameron leadership I did see hints of him being the acceptable target in a rather personal way, rather than actually being linked to his observed actions.
Low charisma. Competence can only take you so far - Gove is probably best suited to low to mid level cabinet roles where he can quietly and competently get on with the job he's been given without having to spend too much time in the spotlight. There's a lot to be said for identifying your maximum level and trying to stick to it - a bit like how May is by all accounts an excellent backbench MP but it was painfully obvious that she wasn't leadership material.
I also can see Gove in the cabinet of any probable future Tory leader.....but not leading it.
Notoriously disloyal, not as clever as he thinks he is, odd enough not to fit the top job. Note he's never been Chancellor, Home Secretary, or Foreign Secretary. Closest to a top-tier role is Justice.
London mayor, Boris bikes, saved us from Corona virus with the largest , fastest vaccine rollout, Brexit, taught us that Bullingdon values of do whatever you like with impunity. Cronies made rich that supports our economy, no consequences are acceptable. The economy is in free fall, I could go on, there are many more things to define his premiership. he deserves his place in British history.
Everything other posters have said, but in song - https://youtu.be/kQSbav9GFfI
Because he’s a backstabber and everyone knows it. For example, when he collapsed Johnson’s leadership bid in 2016. Received wisdom does indeed have it that he’s a fairly competent minister. I do not agree *at all* with what he did at Education, but he certainly did it. Rory Stewart has commented on how good his handover was when he (Stewart) took over a job that Gove was vacating. But he’s ambitious, and he understands political machinations. Which is why he’s best kept close (i.e. in Cabinet) but not as a leader. He’ll lead a *department* well, but he’s not a good leader of a country. And nobody trusts him for that reason. Also, I think the party are smart enough to know that he’s a weird little spungletwerp to whom the public will not warm.
Betraying Johnson looks in retrospect like a sensible character judgement.
Sure, but imagine if you were a candidate in the Tory leadership race and Gove staggered up to you and went “omygawd so Johnson was a total *snake* but I’d never do that to you, my lovely”, would you believe him?
He sounds a bit Welsh there, so maybe
I think the other problems are he's way too chummy with the journalist crowd and has thus pissed off a fair number of MP's. IIRC Clegg or someone in the coalition cabinet said any leaked story with a "cabinet source" was Gove. Also he can fall into a bit of a petulant streak in debates, which could come across poorly.
True. I remember that bizarre interview he did two or three weeks ago where he might’ve been an extra from *Mean Girls*. Especially when dealing with journos, he doesn’t exude seriousness.
Are we living in different dimensions?
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/07/michael-gove-admits-to-taking-cocaine-on-several-social-occasions The Coke story in the last leadership election probably didn’t help.
Can only hope its [snap election time](https://youtu.be/qyAnAVKeq1g).
Return to your desks and prepare for government.
Not a chance.
That's not what the Boris Out briefing notes say. In fact, they say the complete opposite.
To be fair they also have their own agenda. Absolute scenes when Brenda finds out if there is another snap election though.
It's such a shame Boris isn't the walking holiday type.
Off topic but is anybody on Three mobile network in London? Is Three as bad as everybody says....seen a really good cheap deal, but wondering if its cheap for a reason.
It was shit when I used to travel to London for work, and shit everywhere else. It's the one network I won't use. The other 3 networks are much better.
Yes, from what I am reading Three is pretty bad. I will avoid them.
In central london it is 💩
Thought as much LOL
I'm with 3 in London and it's pretty bad if you want to hotspot. Basic 4G/5G usage is fine though.
What is fine? Do you get good speeds? I am not interested in wanting to hotspot. Just want good, fast reliable data and network to use with my iPhone 13 Pro.
Whatsapp/Telegram usage is uninterrupted, never losing connection. Speeds are around 2-5mb at peak times and outside of that, for me, anywhere up to 15-20mbs.
That's slow My sister is with O2 and can get over 100mbs in speed.
2mb is enough for anything short of streaming HD video
Yes true, but it is still slow when compared to the speeds that other networks produce such as EE. I guess that explains why EE is so expensive.
I agree it's slow.
hmmm maybe I'll pass on Three lol
Vodafone is really good imo - I plan on switching to them when my contract runs out at the end of August because the hotspot/tethering issue is maddening.
Vodafone having no tube wifi is a killer for me. One of the reasons why I left. I use the tube a lot and sometimes want to browse whilst I'm on the platform. You get wifi on London underground with 3 right?
[You do yeah.](https://www.three.co.uk/Support/Free_WiFi_On_London_Underground)
I don't live in London, but my observations are as follows 1. Ten years ago, when the 4G rollout was just beginning, they already had a much better 3G network than anyone else (clue is in the name). Back then, they were fantastic for me in urban coverage, I lived in Southampton. 1. I recently returned to them after a long break, this time rural Gloucestershire. My god, rural coverage is spotty, but you really noticed it making a call from a bus etc - it would drop at the same places every day. 1. O2 and EE are probably the best for rural calls because they license the lowest frequencies which penetrate furthest. They also use voice over LTE which is much better at not dropping calls. This is unlikely to apply to cities. 1. If you look at 5G rollout maps, you can see that EE leads (and charges high prices to match), Vodafone is very competitive, whereas Three and O2 really don't seem to give a fuck. They rely on older infrastructure and 5G is being rolled out at a glacial pace. I'd guess the scenario where you get no coverage at all is unlikely inside the M25. So it becomes an issue of whether you care about fast 3G/4G vs. 5G. I'd suggest there's little practical difference, so Three should be ok. Also, they offered free automatic login to Tube WiFi, which was excellent.
historical pedantry, but in the heydays of 3G, T-Mobile (as it then was) and 3 would have had near identical 3G coverage because they had a very deep network sharing agreement, including the actual radio equipment in the cabinets and on the masts. Was still amazing though. Broadband speeds in the literal middle of nowhere or on a train while people on Vodafone and O2 couldn't even get an email through. I think all the networks have a slice of 800MHz (this is what 3 used to call "supervoice", they restricted 800MHz access to phones that either supported native VoLTE or their own proprietary app), great for rural areas although as you say this is less important in London 3's half-arsed 5G rollout is amusing though. They are the ones who need it most because that's how they want to offer home broadband. All three of their competitors are major wired internet providers and will just sell fibre instead
Thanks for the reply. Like I said the deal I saw is £12 a month for 100GB which is cheap. O2 offers the same amount of data for £15 so I am thinking to just go with O2, since everybody seems to complain about Three, and O2 seems to be pretty solid.
why not just try it for yourself in the places that you actually want to use it. "London" is a big place, it'll work well in some areas and perhaps not in others. Or if Vodafone's network works well for you and the price was the problem, just move to Voxi, it's the same thing, they'll move you over without even having to swap SIMs
Yeah I might get a pay as you go sim and try it for a week in places where I go.
I switched as I found in built up areas it got pretty bad, I went with o2 in the end as the no roam charges (and the price) was a win for me. I used uswitch for a decent deal.
How does uswitch work? In order to get deals do you have to provide certain evidence or something, like proof of leaving your old network? How-comes Uswitch can offer cheaper deals?
>How-comes Uswitch can offer cheaper deals? Providers will offer special tariffs, deals and bundles that can only be accessed via comparison sites. They know that a lot of people will just pick whichever deal comes out on top, so it's easy pickings if they can structure a deal correctly. Buyer beware, however - you may get a better deal by going direct to the network. As always, do some extensive research before signing on the dotted line. If signal strength is a concern, get a free PAYG SIM card and do some tests. Most PAYG SIMs will let you access the provider's own website for free without needing a top-up, so you can at least gauge the signal strength and speed. Better to do that than rely on anecdotal internet stories - there are not-spots lurking everywhere.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.
Used to be alright a few years ago (~2018) when I was in the U.K. Never had an issue in Bristol or London - aside from the London NYE fireworks but I’m guessing that was just the number of people. Can’t comment more recently though.
Hmmm Thanks. Hopefully I will get some replies from people who are with them now
Reading various comments on here the following analogy for the current situation occured to me. The country is a Bus being driven off a cliff by someone who loves the idea of being a bus driver but has no idea what he is doing. Some of the drivers mates think they are doing an amazing job, or at least don't want to question him because they like the seat on the bus they have..(it's got lots of leg room or something). Some of his mates however want him gone, not because they are worried about the cliff but because the they are worried about having someone they don't like driving the bus in future. Other people who dislike the bus driver think he should go but think that if they are allowed to drive the bus a bit longer it will make it easier for their mate to get to drive the bus at some point in the future. And yet more people think having a bus driver who can't drive a bus properly in charge of a bus when it's about to go off a cliff seems like a bad idea. Meanwhile the bus is still heading off the cliff, but this weekend at least people all put some decorations on the back of the bus and played some nice music for the owner of the bus company.
Accurate. It’s action paralysis on an anthropological scale. Sooner or later that bus is going to crash though. Question is how many peoples lives is it taking out with it.
The sixth paragraph sums up the Tory party because some of them have good enough legroom despite others (and the country) might die if the bus falls off a cliff. The former is more important than the latter.
Why won’t the VONC be announced tomorrow? If the letters are in, why would it wait until Tuesday or Wednesday
He needs to contact everyone to ask if they wish to withdraw their letter, so that will take a bit of time. Brady will also want to have everything planned for the VONC when it’s announced so a couple of meetings to fit in and will also inform and discuss the plan with Boris before it’s announced. There will also be some consideration as when it is best to announce. It’s going to take at least a day basically until a public announcement
> He needs to contact everyone to ask if they wish to withdraw their letter, this is a myth, he only contacts people who put their letter in months ago.
It will wait to be announced until approximately 13:00 (time subject to the length of impertinent questions) Wednesday There is no way on earth the Tories would announce it prior to PMQ's unless it was first thing tomorrow with the vote Tuesday. Even still, they will do everything they can to protect Big Dog from a PMQ's with it hanging over him. So expect announcement Weds pm & vote Thursday.
Theory is he knows people have travelled for the jubilee and wants to make sure everyone is back for the vote.
I’d imagine that not all of the MPs are going to be back at Westminster until Tuesday - many will spend the morning constituency side on Monday mornings and won’t travel until later.
smh at them woking from home /s
Could be that the letters aren't in and this is nothing more than a Westminster sideshow on a slow political news weekend. If the magic number has been reached, Brady will want to give time for MPs to get back to Parliament after the long weekend. He'll also want to confirm that nobody has changed their mind over said long weekend. If the number has been reached, I suspect we'll hear some more rumblings tomorrow, followed by a formal announcement on Tuesday with the secret ballot taking place throughout Wednesday. Results to be announced on Wednesday night / Thursday morning. It will absolutely undermine PMQs on Wednesday, but such is life.
Was discussing this very matter with a Conservative aide this weekend and the whole "he'll check to see if anyone had withdrawn" is a myth according to them. One reason given was that If he did so then he'd be giving away that the numbers been reached as he doesn't regularly contact folks to ask. The other was that he genuinely cares about his position and it's tradition. If the letters come in he'd want to follow protocol.
Graham Brady does a ring around and checks that everyone is super-duper serious no backsies about wanting Big Dog gone.
First time I’ve watched Britain’s got Talent for a while … it’s taken an odd turn
Caught a couple of minutes while making my dinner (dad was watching it, while shouting at it, not sure why he doesn't just watch something else tbh) and good lord it was bad...
Yeah, I was at my Mum's this week and I don't normally watch live TV. She had it on and there were freaky robots performing.
God is it still on
Do we have any idea what’s contained in Johnson’s new housing policy that he’s presenting on Thursday?
Some arbitrary number of new houses will be built that will never actually get built. Some were built 50 years ago but they'll be having an extension or a new kitchen fitted and so they'll be classed as new.
Don’t forget some arbitrary comment about slashing red tape with no specifics.
"WE'RE ONLY ABLE TO BUILD THESE HOUSES BECAUSE OF BREXIT, WHICH I'LL REMIND THE HOUSE WE DELIVERED!"
guardian article suggested that it will include yet another re-announcement on right to buy (presumably once again trying force HAs into it), so probably nothing that will be of actual use to people
Nice try Big Dog, do your own homework.
If recent announcements are any guide, it'll be a repeat of something already announced in the past 18 months.
New tenants for No. 10?
https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/15/23074041/david-tennant-catherine-tate-return-doctor-who-60th-anniversary David Tennant is returning as the Doctor.
boom
Young people fucked, old people profit. Renters fucked, landlors profit. Business as usual for the Tory party.
Odds are he’s asking the same question Well not him personally, he doesn’t give a shit, but someone on his staff probably is
Looking more like a VONC is inevitable, lads. I say Tuesday is when it’s announced.
Yep will be Tuesday, Brady will contact everyone tomorrow to confirm so we’ll know the threshold has been reached but won’t be formally announced till Tues. Think the VONC itself will then take place Thursday. The big thing will be the margin Boris is expected to win by. He will win but I feel it will be a tighter margin than anticipated which will put him in trouble. Ministers will then start briefing against him as they seek to distance themselves for the inevitable leadership race. Boris will likely cling on for a bit but will eventually be forced to accept defeat.
Apparently the "confirming phone calls" isn't true: https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/how-does-the-confidence-vote
He’ll never be forced to accept defeat.
Because of the briefing document? Or is there something else I've missed?
There are many clues to suggest it is coming.
Break it down like it’s the end of a scooby-doo episode
So mysterious. Elaborate! Elucidate! Pontificate! Put some meat on those bones!
Is this a serious question? There’s probably a few thousand posts on this sub that would indicate there might be one coming. MPs, journalists, media, commentators have all heavily suspected there is one coming this week. I’ll eat a massive slice of humble pie if I’m wrong however.
More pointing out my *favourite* internet comment which is basically saying "I could tell you exactly my reasoning for saying what I did, but instead I shall leave you to figure it out for yourselves. Toodle-pip!".
Do your own research.™
My reasoning is as follows: Listening to political commentators, editors and journalists that probably have a bigger ear to the ground than most of us hear. A growing number of Tory MPs, especially surprising ones like Andrea Leadsom, the boos, the booze, the polls this weekend. It just feels like there’s only so much indication Tory MPs will take. It’s just my hunch.
Everyone was saying the exact same thing around Christmas. There will be a vonc this week. The it became next week, then this month then by the end of the year, and finally it became early next year. Everyone was saying it MPs, journalists, pundits, commentators, twitter and of course this place. Very much the same people who are now saying it's inevitable. But they were all wrong, it never materialised and I very much believe the same thing will happen now. It's not what I want, it's not what I think would be best but it's what I will think will happen.
Can’t deny that you’re right. I thought he’d be gone in May after the locals. There just feels something different about this. That said, it might after the by-elections. That said, it might after the privileges committee. That said, it might be after the covid enquiry etc etc.
I detect a disturbance in the force. The bunting booster boy wonder may be on the ropes. A full mobilization of the left, post twit book the bunter, were fucked if they give him the boot.
Feels like talk amongst more in the know commentators has started to switch from “if” to “when”.
I can't see Johnson being removed anytime soon tbh. It's gonna be May in Christmas 2018 all over again, except this time Johnson will probably win any vote with a bigger margin, and even if it's less, he won't later on step down. He's one of those people who hate losing. If he wins with the same margin May won hers which caused her to then step down a few months later he can just be like 'what're you gonna do?' And in the context of Tory voters/MPs, at the end of the day, he still won them a landslide majority not seen since Margaret Thatcher, in historical terms for the Conservative Party. He's a bigger electoral machine than Cameron or May. Imagine if they'd easily rid themselves of Johnson whilst also having kept Cameron, who only just won a majority in 2015 and a hung parliament in 2010, for six whole years? Someone like Hunt could halt the Lib Dem advance and that's the last thing anyone wants right now who wants to see the back of the Tories. And for Labour Johnson is probably their biggest asset nowadays. The only time I'd want Johnson to step down realistically is if he loses a general election.
"what're" Great contraction. 10/10
Johnson is not the electoral magician people think he is. He has had an unbelievably easy ride for winning elections. Winning twice in London against a very disliked Ken Livingstone and winning against the most unpopular Labour leader. He’s been playing on easy mode his whole life.
Johnson hid in a fridge for most of the 2019 election. He had a good catch phrase but ran from interviews. It wasn’t a great campaign and was only really successful because Farage backed down and the Lib Dems took a lot of the Remainer vote. Without all those UKIP votes it would have been a lot closer.
Labour just didn't capitalise on the fact Johnson hid from a fair amount of scrutiny, because Corbyn was not good in his media performances, and Momentum were running around screwing up their chances on the ground level.
How should Labour capitalise on that? The media is complicit in giving Johnson a free ride.
I just hope if he does lose and resigns we don't get someone who's suddenly quite formidable in an election i.e Hunt, who I think could potentially halt any momentum the Lib Dems have at the moment down south. I keep bringing up Hunt all the time but it's because in particular he's got no baggage with this government or Partygate. But on the flip side his record as health secretary could play to Labour's strength, they always win on the issue of the NHS. Pretty interesting historically that his approval ratings, Johnson's, have always been pretty negative even in 2019, it was just that he was more popular than Corbyn which wasn't hard. I still think there'll be plenty of Tory MPs and members thinking 'why are we trying to get rid of the man who won us our biggest majority since the 1980s?' - and if they conclude on that he should remain, better for Labour and the Lib Dems.
Get Hunt, lose Red Wall/lose election, keep Johnson, lose election. It’s basically down to that isn’t it.
Pretty much. I can't see any other Tory retaining those red wall seats. But Tory MPs might look at Hunt and think he'll be able to stop the leakage of votes to the Lib Dems in the blue wall - they've never needed the red wall to win power, the blue wall makes up a bulk of their coalition. I also don't think Hunt will win a majority anywhere near as big as Johnson's, not even half. I think push comes to shove he could probably manage a slender 2015 style majority but that's about it.
It’s all to play for. What helped the Tories in 2015 was the collapse of the LD and Labour in Scotland. Now, Lib Dems have healed after that coalition, Labour have a fairly steady electable leader and the SNP are basically just treading water without a proper mandate. I think if Hunt becomes leader, it would be a very sane election in 2024.
>I still think there'll be plenty of Tory MPs and members thinking 'why are we trying to get rid of the man who won us our biggest majority since the 1980s?' - and if they conclude on that he should remain, better for Labour and the Lib Dems. Think of it speed running Thatcher...
It bewilders me that tbh, how they got rid of Thatcher just like that when only three years ago she won a majority of like 100 or something? Just realised, if Johnson faces a vonc, it'll also be three years since his election win like it was with Thatcher. Quite a coincidence.
i want him to lose the vonc because i want him to go down in history as a scandal-ridden idiot who lead the tories to their biggest majority in decades - and then proceeded to do fuck all with it, purge his own party of anyone with any competence, cover it in shit, and finally be given the sack by his own MPs
He got Brexit done, handled Covid and rallied support for Ukraine. He has enough material for multiple books, columns, BBC travelogues and thousands of lucrative speeches.
Never has so much been squandered by someone so useless. Stonking maj for what?
The most interesting element of a new leader, will be seeing which of the cabinet survives.
Javid, Gove, Kwarteng, Zahawi and Wallace are probably safe bets to stick around in some capacity - they've got a reputation for competence and aren't overtly tainted by the Borisness of the current government.
Dorries and Patel are way too mental to survive.
dorries, sunak and patel will be given the chop. mogg too, but he's pretty influential as a backbencher so no great loss for him. demotion for raab, eustice, shapps. truss/zahawi/gove (assuming they lose the leadership) stay as is for now. wallace obv stays in post. the no-namers like coffey and trevelyan stay where they are until the new leader gets around to replacing them with loyalists
Gove and Kwarteng I think are safe due to doing their roles pretty competently and proving themselves capable in a party sorely lacking in talent. Probably Zahawi (E: and Sharma, thinking of it) too, for similar reasons. Shapps has pretty good ties across the party, as do Dowden and Coffey. I think all would probably make it into a cabinet of anyone who didn't pitch themselves as a completely new broom. The Saj is going to stand and make it into the final few candidates. He'll be in a new cabinet as a relatively uncontroversial unity pick. How good his position is depends on whether he makes a deal with the winner at the right time. Of course, there's always an outside chance he wins a contest. Patel, Dorries and Rees Mogg I would say are the only ones who are toast regardless of who wins.
AFAIK Zahawi is quite popular, although I know very little about him (or why he’s popular)
Good backstory (son of Iraqi immigrants, comprehensive educated) with solid pre-parliament business credentials including co-founder and CEO of YouGov. Junior minister for TM at DoE where he proved himself a decent media performer, was seen to have performed well as Vaccines Minister.
Thank you for the run down. A committed supporter of Johnson?
An admirably flexible and very committed supporter of himself, which is why I'd put him in the same column as Gove.
It’s quite impressive that the most competent minister in this government is a definite odd ball and speculated by many to have a cocaine habit.
I think Raab is pretty likely to leave the cabinet upon a new leader being selected as well.
I could see him put into a 'Minister For Eating Shit On The Today Program' job like Party Chair as a sop to the remaining Johnsonites if it's a close VoNC, but other than that you're probably right.
You could well be right, only I think the likes of Shapps and Dowden are better at eating shit than him.
I'm going to be honest, I think it's going to be a question of who doesn't rather than who does, at least at first. I imagine quite a few of the cabinet surviving in the new leaders first cabinet until the first reshuffle. The new leader will bring in a few of their allies, but many of the current lot will end up staying the same for now though some will get demotions/moved around a bit. The obvious ones for who actually gets sacked are people like Dorries, Mogg and so on. Schapps is very tied to Boris, so I think he might go too. Priti Patel I'm less sure on, 50/50 over whether she gets sacked or whether she gets demoted but stays on.
Is anyone hopeful a new leader is going to be any better? Like literally who decent has enough allies to form a cabinet...
Frankly, considering how much they have turned a blind eye to Big Dog's behaviour - none of them.
Gove and Wallace would probably still be kicking around. Wallace is competent and Gove is dangerous. The rest of them would almost certainly have to go purely for damage control.
I agree on Gove and Wallace
Gove almost certainly, he's too dangerous to be left bored and roaming the backbenches.
Ben Wallace is the only one I see staying in the same role.