Discussion continues
661912
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 15 Jun 23 at 11:03
|
Nadine D has stood down immediately as MP for her seat in Bedfordshire.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65860564
Fit of pique over not getting into the Lords??
|
>> Nadine D has stood down immediately as MP for her seat in Bedfordshire.
>> Fit of pique over not getting into the Lords??
Could well be.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65861936
|
|
Most likely, but it crossed my mind that Boris's WhatsApps might embarrass her. Unlikely though.
|
>> Fit of pique over not getting into the Lords??
Dear Lord, having seen BoJo the clowns honours list, I am utterly utterly disgusted,,
|
|
....not on it then, Z....?
|
>> ....not on it then, Z....?
Pity, I can see me at the urinals in the Lords wen JRM walks in
Turns to face him, "Oh Hello Jay-cob". Whoopps Sorry about your shoes.....
|
>> Dear Lord, having seen BoJo the clowns honours list, I am utterly utterly disgusted,,
Another example of the Johnson premiership giving an impetus to change that we were too complacent to see the need for?
|
|
Surprised that Ben Houchen becomes a peer. From what I've read he should be the subject of a police investigation not appearing on an honours list!!
Last edited by: smokie on Fri 9 Jun 23 at 18:32
|
|
...and now the big one ..
|
|
There is a post on here some time ago where I explicitly stated Bojo would screw up the country, leave parliament and then sodd off to the states do earn big bucks on the pubic speaking tour.
|
>> ..... on the pubic speaking tour.
>>
...he usually speaks from somewhere further back...
|
And another... "Nigel Adams, MP for Selby and Ainsty, has stood down but did not say why. "
www.bbc.co.uk/news/65866187
I was going to say I hadn't heard of him but there are so many I haven't heard of since Boris's clear-out....
|
>> Nadine D has stood down immediately as MP for her seat in Bedfordshire.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65860564
>>
>> Fit of pique over not getting into the Lords??
Well apparently she hasn't yet resigned, and hasn't said when she will. Its a real case of throwing her toys out the pram, but leaving them attached on a long string.
|
Boris may be a wrong un, but look at the bright side.
The Yanks have Trump.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-65876914
90 days.
Good - hopefully enough to demolish him coming back and the start of de-normalising being an overt lying scumbag as a trait of leadership.
Obviously covertly it will continue as it always has!
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 15 Jun 23 at 09:44
|
All it needed was an admission of a breech of the rules, say it was a lapse, and apology to the house, and he would still have been where he was.
The blatant lies, bluster, contempt shown to others and a belief he should be allowed to get away with anything has ballooned into this. What a dick
|
As if the tories weren’t already going to get totally stiffed at the next election, these developments will make things so much worse for them!
The conservative party as was has been totally transformed, reflected in rags like the torygraph
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-65876914
I really don't get the "apology" culture.
Mind you, I don't get the "vigil" culture either.
Then, I don't get so much of what goes on nowadays. Before the war, Rodney.
|
I see BoJo has nabbed a job as a columnist for the DM. Not cleared by ACOBA but apparently they are less interested in journo jobs. Wasn't he on £800k+ at the DT before he became PM? I wonder what the DM has paid him.
EDIT: Oops I think it was Gideon on £800k as editor at the Standard, Boris was only on £275k at the DT.
Last edited by: smokie on Fri 16 Jun 23 at 14:30
|
news.sky.com/story/defence-secretary-ben-wallace-to-stand-down-at-next-election-12921562
Ben Wallace to leave the cabinet at the next reshuffle and then not contest any seat at the next GE. I think he was the longest serving Conservative Defence Secretary.
|
|
His seat was disappearing too so I guess just felt he'd had enough. He had hopes of general sec of NATO or similar IIRC, which have been dashed.
|
|
Nadine Dorris - She really is a nasty unprincipled self centred piece of work. Throws her toys out the pram because she had her honours taken away, refuses to full-fill her role both in parliament and locally. She needs to be tarred & feathered and dumped in the local pond like the witch she is.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 9 Aug 23 at 11:57
|
|
You are just far too tolerant!
|
|
Zeddo has become a snowflake.,
|
|
Send her down to Manatees way, they know how to deal with witches down there.
|
>> Send her down to Manatees way, they know how to deal with witches down there.
Fancy you knowing that Zeddo!
|
>> >> Send her down to Manatees way, they know how to deal with witches down
>> there.
>>
>> Fancy you knowing that Zeddo!
The dog training group there is known as the coven
|
>> She needs to be tarred & feathered and dumped in the local pond like the witch she is.
The last doing-in by dunking of an alleged witch in England took place a short stroll from here in 1751. The ringleader was executed and hung in chains nearby.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Osborne_(alleged_witch)
|
>>The ringleader was executed and hung in chains nearby.
Good.
Witch-hunting - a excuse for murder.
|
>> Good.
>>
>> Witch-hunting - a excuse for murder.
Get a grip zipster, it was 280 odd years ago, not that it would have mattered to you, in the intervening years you'd have been in a penal colony in Tasmania, Port Arthur probably.
|
Dorries has finally gone.
www.itv.com/news/2023-08-26/nadine-dorries-resigns-as-tory-mp-with-scathing-attack-on-rishi-sunak
No date for a by election so soon, however not sure if the area has voted for anyone other than Con regularly? I think she has a pretty big majority, mind so did other areas.
This must be a pretty high number of by elections for any gov to have contested in such a short space of time.
|
In normal times her 20k+ majority would be unassailable.
But we're not in normal times.
|
|
I quick nosey on wiki says the last non Con MP to win there was in 1929. I think it's safe to call it a safe seat, however like you say it's not normal times. I think 2 of the other by elections overturned 20k majority though.
|
>> I quick nosey on wiki says the last non Con MP to win there was
>> in 1929. I think it's safe to call it a safe seat, however like you
>> say it's not normal times. I think 2 of the other by elections overturned 20k
>> majority though.
Losing a majority north of 10k at a GE is probably exceptional but picking a couple of 97 losers, both Michael Portillo and Tony Newton were 15k plus in 1992.
|
|
She was unpopular before this hiatus. Lib/dems have been doing a lot of door knocking recently. I'll await the result with interest!
|
An odious turd.
She would have been perfect as a Director of Nursing in most NHS trusts.
|
She does write a good letter though.
"Since you took office a year ago, the country is run by a zombie Parliament where nothing meaningful has happened. What exactly has been done or have you achieved? You hold the office of Prime Minister unelected, without a single vote, not even from your own MPs. You have no mandate from the people and the Government is adrift. You have squandered the goodwill of the nation, for what?"
She's not wrong is she?
|
|
So what was she expecting to be done? I was always taught to present the positives alongside the negatives. Unless I was just being a moaning minnie.
|
|
I'm not sure she's the best person to judge what's happening in Parliament, she's probably forgotten where it is.
|
>> And another by election. Must be a record number.
Done a Boris and jumped before he was pushed.
|
There have been 16 by elections between 2019 and 2023 - this may exclude a few more recent ones so assume (say) 20.
By comparison there have been many periods with a greater number
1945-1950 50
1951-1955 44
1955-1958 49
1959-1964 61
Rather than listing all of them - since the war, there have been 21 separate administrations due to general elections. In only 12 of those were there less than 20 by elections.
By comparison Rishi could be renamed "Lucki Rishi"!
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7529/CBP-7529.pdf#page=45
|
>> There have been 16 by elections between 2019 and 2023 - this may exclude a
>> few more recent ones so assume (say) 20.
>>
>> By comparison there have been many periods with a greater number
>>
>> 1945-1950 50
>> 1951-1955 44
>> 1955-1958 49
>> 1959-1964 61
I wonder how far those numbers after the war and up to 64 compared to now reflect the change of age/background among MPs. How many were caused by the death of the sitting member?
Anecdotally (at least) a large proportion of Tories in those days were so called 'Knights of the Shires' while Labour's cohort were older men who had come up through the Trades Unions.
Those in the current parliament have been largely people who have been suspended and recalled or have resigned before they were pushed. Chesham and Amersham was the death of Cheryl Gillan and Southend West of course the assassination of the sitting member. A couple of others resigned after taking other office - Batley and Spen for example.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 6 Jan 24 at 11:34
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67905092
>>
>> Another one in the near future?
Another to watch but it looks more like a cockup than a conspiracy. I'll be surprised if there are not others in a similar position irrespective of party.
|
|
Liam Byrne campaign for Mayor of West Midlands.
|
>> Liam Byrne campaign for Mayor of West Midlands.
Can save me hours of Googling to understand that reference?
Unless of course it's yet another reference to that 'no money left' message.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 7 Jan 24 at 13:44
|
Maybe it wasn't reported by The G but here's Wiki:
"In May 2023, Byrne was found to have misused public expenses. Byrne denied wrongdoing, but the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) found there was “overwhelming evidence” that a member of Byrne's staff had worked on his failed mayoral election campaign during office hours, conservatively estimating that at least around 1,000 hours of public-funded time had been spent on the campaign. MPs may not use taxpayer-funded allowances for political campaigns; Byrne was not asked to repay the funds because the total hours worked by the staff member could not be established with some evidence in the report suggesting the hours could be in the thousands. Byrne stated subsequently he accepted the findings but refused to apologise."
|
>> Maybe it wasn't reported by The G but here's Wiki:
I'm sure it was but I cant remember the whyfores etc. Thanks for putting me on the right track.
IPSA, which was set up in the aftermath of the expenses scandal, has probably now become part of the landscape but initially it was VERY unpopular with MP's.
It's first CEO was the late Andrew Macdonald, probably the best and most professionally skilful Civil Servant I ever met.
|
|
Talking of civil servants, I see Simon Case is returning to work.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67895246
Chris Skidmore quits over new oil and gas licences. Another by election soon. Poor old Rishi. It never rains but it pours (literally now).
|
|
Looks like he's going to lose his majority by-election by by-election.
|
I really don't know why you are so surprised. This is par for the course - a party in for 13 or 14 years, then another party in. It's the way you have done it for years, you vote a party in for a spell, they blot their copybook, you get tired of them and vote the other side in.
You are the only people that voted them in, don't look to blame someone else.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom
|
>> I really don't know why you are so surprised.
Who mentioned anything about being surprised?
|
|
I did. I can read between the lines.
|
|
Ah well you know what they say about assuming.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 5 Jan 24 at 22:16
|
>Chris Skidmore quits over new oil and gas licences..
Skidmore is paid £80k a year for 160hrs work advising a company that touts for business in "industrial decarbonisation and clean technology". Maybe he's going full time and couldn't resist the publicity?
|
Skidmore is paid £80k a year for 160hrs work advising a company that touts for
>> business in "industrial decarbonisation and clean technology". Maybe he's going full time and couldn't resist
>> the publicity?
>>
I'm not sure the issuing of new licences makes much odds either way to the UK, there's so little left in the N Sea. I watched a piece on Sky news, I think by 2030 without the licences we'd import 95% of gas and oil, with them it was 93%.
The new licences are for very small amounts of oil & gas.
|
>>The new licences are for very small amounts of oil & gas.
That's interesting. So perhaps the main problem here is the message it sends about UK's commitment to decarbonisation?
And the claim that it would ensure UK's energy security is utter tripe, even if the production wasn't just going to end up on the commodity market.
|
That's interesting. So perhaps the main problem here is the message it sends about UK's
>> commitment to decarbonisation?
>>
>> And the claim that it would ensure UK's energy security is utter tripe, even if
>> the production wasn't just going to end up on the commodity market.
From my understanding it makes no real difference if the licences are granted or not, there's not much left.
|
|
Bye election results could be interesting.
|
|
What election? She is still an MP
|
>> What election? She is still an MP
Tulip remains an MP but it's only a matter of time before death, misconduct or the prospect a better paid role leads an MP to chuck it in.
Big majorities can also leave us with 'accidental MPs' who may be more likely to have issues in their past etc.
|
>> What election? She is still an MP
I hear pressure's being applied, don't know why, I would have thought it's the last thing they need now with their current popularity.
|
What I find irritating is that part of her defence was that she didn’t break the Ministerial Code. Does she expect that accepting a £2m flat from persons unknown to her has to be explicitly spelled out in the code for it to be problem.
I wonder if Starmer, as a lawyer, has a moral blind spot when it comes to things that are not specifically forbidden. He seems to lack political nous.
|
|
Tony Blair and his wife also had an extensive property portfolio.
|
>> Now Healey has gone.
Didn't see that coming. Were there any clues for those nearer MoD then I am?
Wonder who will take on the brief to replace him or if any other ministers, defence or otherwise, follow him over the side.
|
|
Healey believes we are severely underspending on defence, a view I share. It’s no good maintaining benefits and things likethe triple lock on pensions if the government can’t fulfil its number one priority which is to defend the country. We need to get our priorities right.
|
>>and things like the triple lock on pensions
And gold-plated public sector pensions, while you're at it!
|
>> And gold-plated public sector pensions, while you're at it!
No quick savings there unless you pull the rug from under people which isn't politically acceptable .
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 11 Jun 26 at 15:34
|
>> >> And gold-plated public sector pensions, while you're at it!
>>
>> No quick savings there unless you pull the rug from under people which isn't politically
>> acceptable .
I agree, but a lot of us have had the rug pulled on pensions with schemes closed first to new members and then to everybody.
|
>> >>and things like the triple lock on pensions
>>
>> And gold-plated public sector pensions, while you're at it!
The total cost of the welfare system is ~£330bn including ~£170bn on pensions (excludes the cost of "gold plated" public sector pensions).
Gold plated is ~£55bn pa, mainly met (~£50bn) by employer government departments. This means the cost of (say) retired teacher pensions appears as an education expense etc.
There are ~6m public sector pensions in payment - an average of ~£9-10k pa. Some do very well, but many had fairly low paid jobs for NHS, local authorities etc, often part time, and possibly only for a few years.
The public sector largely closed final salary pension schemes over the last 15 years. Reducing future pensions may mean many pensioners would qualify for other benefits (pension credit, housing etc) offsetting any saving. Still worth putting into the benefits savings pot!!
|
|
Didn't Rachel from accounts say something to the effect of: we need to see what taxes we can increase to pay more social services?
|
>> Didn't Rachel from accounts say something to the effect of: we need to see what
>> taxes we can increase to pay more social services?
What are social services in this context?
Funding care for both the elderly and kids is a problem both parties have failed to play straight over for more than a decade.
|
Not hugely surprising, the PM has dithered for nearly a year on this. Endless defence companies and well contected ex-military have done the rounds. Even George Robertson has gone public, CDS had sent a private letter (content not leaked) to the PM. But to nought.
The PM is unable to make a decision.
He can't raise taxes because of the markets, he can't touch Milibands budget because he's weak. Welfare is untouchable as well, if he did he'd be gone in 24-48 hours, see Pat McFadden for details.
So it goes on, complete paralysis.
|
>> He can't raise taxes because of the markets, he can't touch Milibands budget because he's
>> weak. Welfare is untouchable as well, if he did he'd be gone in 24-48 hours,
>> see Pat McFadden for details.
I think the markets would be OK with tax. It's borrowing that's the problem.
If Starmer had been the sort of PM who saw his backbenchers as people, glad handed them and socialised with them he might have been able to 'roll the ground' for benefits changes.
Just dropping what looked very much like the Tories plans and with nothing in the manifesto to support cuts he was on a hiding to nothing.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 11 Jun 26 at 15:34
|
He should have handled it better but he was in a corner to start with. The Conservatives were not exactly fixing it when they were interrupted.
The real tragedy may yet be to come. A slump paves the way for the populists.
|
>> The real tragedy may yet be to come. A slump paves the way for the
>> populists.
>>
Exactly.
I think he should ignore Trump and tax online (often US) businesses more - through various wheezes Amazon etc. pay a fraction of the taxes that competing High Street businesses pay. Hence the decline in the High Street.
|
I think the markets would be OK with tax. It's borrowing that's the problem.
Yes i should have written borrowing, my mistake.
>> If Starmer had been the sort of PM who saw his backbenchers as people, glad
>> handed them and socialised with them he might have been able to 'roll the ground'
>> for benefits changes.
>>
>> Just dropping what looked very much like the Tories plans and with nothing in the
>> manifesto to support cuts he was on a hiding to nothing.
>
I think we've done this before, i don't agree with that version of events. But either way what is clear is the back benchers have him over a barrel on welfare and so it's untouchable.
|
|
Basically there is no wiggle room, which I presume KS realises. Trying to tax the 'rich' is likely to make some of them escape elsewhere. Our socialist govt's ideology requires that any subsidies go to those deserving 'working people'. If a boost went to the armaments industry I suppose jobs would result, but I guess at bottom the party in power has too few MPs who recognise the threat and know what to do about it.
|
Starmer is well aware the first responsibility of government is to protect and safeguard the lives of its citizens. The threat level has increased markedly over the last 4 years with serious conflict in the Middle East and Ukraine, and reduced confidence in NATO.
The Strategic Defence Review which Starmer commissioned was published a year ago. It now seems essential additional spending requirements will not be funded. His dilatory and inadequate leadership is a complete disgrace.
How increased spending is funded is up for debate.
Borrowing is completely off limits - it unfairly transfers the cost to future generations. Debt is already at record levels increasing borrowing rates.
Tax increases - a consistent feature of the last two years - NI, non-doms, VAT, inheritance tax etc) Fiscal drag has increased higher rate taxpayers by ~3m and basic rate by ~4m.
Public spending cuts - proven inability to do anything. Starmer, if he is still the man in a couple of months time, needs to accept not all actions will be popular. One suggestion - welfare currently ~£400bn to be reduced in real terms by 2.5% = £10bn pa - headroom for increased Defence expenditure is created.
|
It's a big number, and we all know of people taking advantage, but it's still very disturbing that we think first of taking money from some of the least well off people.
The Conservatives played a blinder when they managed to cut real terms welfare and public employees' wages to bail out the bankers.
|
>> It's a big number, and we all know of people taking advantage, but it's still
>> very disturbing that we think first of taking money from some of the least well
>> off people.
Over the last two years the government has taken money from the working, some of the wealthy, increased unemployment, failed to implement even modest benefit cuts, an extra 1.5m on universal credit. Many claimants struggle and may warrant more help - but time for a bit of balance.
>> The Conservatives played a blinder when they managed to cut real terms welfare and public
>> employees' wages to bail out the bankers.
As I recall it was Gordon Brown and his troops who lead us into the banking crisis. Liam Byrne was kind enough to alert the incoming coalition to the problem. Whether austerity was wholly the right/best strategy is debateable - IMHO largely the right thing to do.
|
You can't blame GB for the banking crisis. It came very much from the US, with the invention of collateralised debt obligations ("mortgage backed" securities) and the bursting of the US house price bubble. The latter could have been foreseen (and obviously was) but most of the holders of CDO's seem to have had no clue what they had.
A lot of people even in my world at the time were saying "this can't last" but I don't recall anybody predicting just what would cause the rood to fall in.
|
The banking crisis, as you say, originated in the US. GB later conceded that regulation of the UK banking sector was inadequate and subsequent changes (liquidity tests etc ) were implemented.
Both as Chancellor, then PM, he was on duty whilst it all unravelled. I don't think him negligent - just the man in charge at the time. There was no way that resolution would be pain free - he dealt with the consequences as best he judged.
That the country was left with a national debt doubled - £500bn higher than before the crisis - is a matter of fact. Austerity was the painful rational policy response to regularise the situation - the coalition government did not create the problem.
|
>> That the country was left with a national debt doubled - £500bn higher than before
>> the crisis - is a matter of fact. Austerity was the painful rational policy response
>> to regularise the situation - the coalition government did not create the problem.
It's argued that the crisis gave the incoming Tories the cover they needed to 'revert to type' and readopt Thatcherite policies.
Some of what my boss in 2010/11 called 'shock and awe' was counterproductive. Wholesale cancellation of school rebuilds/upgrades was a massive blow to construction for example.
|
>> It's a big number, and we all know of people taking advantage, but it's still
>> very disturbing that we think first of taking money from some of the least well
>> off people.
>>
>> The Conservatives played a blinder when they managed to cut real terms welfare and public
>> employees' wages to bail out the bankers.
>>
In this case (duty rumour) it wasn't to be taken from Welfare this time as the PM would be out the door very quickly if he tried that, he went to Miliband and the capital spend on net zero but couldn't get him to agree. The PM seems to have little real authority.
|
|
I think you will find it was Labour who bailed out the bankers, leaving the Tories to pick up the pieces.
|
|
I suspect miliband telling the PM to jog on increases Burnhams chance of becoming leader and his chance of moving into No11. I think the MoD is just an unfortunate casualty in the Labour leadership battle.
|
x.com/NAFOvoyager/status/2065384709174030508
A 30 sec video for a Russian in the ski federation, I think it was the Romans who said something like you might not be interested in war but war is interested in you.
No i don't think the Russian ski federation is going to lob skis at the UK, but i think it shows how we a country might have to make difficult decisions to deal with something even if we don't want to.
|
Papers and radio full of stories that the PM will resign tomorrow.
I suspect that means either he'll resign as Labour leader but stay on as 'caretaker' PM while a succession plan is formulated.
Does anyone think there will be more candidates than the obvious one - Burnham?
|
|
Burnham is a fast track slot in. Streeting may be put in the hat to make it look like a choice, but I bet behind the scenes hes been offered a higher place in the cabinet re-shuffle that will follow.
|
>> Maybe Streeting?
Possibly but I think he's too late to the fair now.
If it went to a vote of the membership with Burnham on the ballot Streeting wouldn't get near the job.
Too Blairite, was too close to Mandelson.
And likely to lose his seat at the next GE.
EDIT: Crossed with Zeddo and agree about offer of a big job.
One of the great offices though not sure which one.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 21 Jun 26 at 11:48
|
I'm a few issues behind reading Private Eye but the one I'm, on now wasn't anywhere near as flattering about his record as health sec as he was. Selectively...
- Streeting, having been shadow health sec since 2021, arrived with very few ideas, his big pitch on taking office was to "declare the NHS broken", that it had to "reform or die" and that "it was in the last chance saloon".
- he brought back Lord Darzi to oversee another NHS review which came to the same obvious conclusions and suggestions
- Labour's 10 year plan - Fit for the Future - included a lot of Darzi's findings and some worth aspirations but with nothing on how to deliver it. The focus is always on waiting times and overcrowded emergency departments.
- in Jan 2025 Streeting said specifically that he would not abolish NHS England. In March 2025 the government announced it's abolition.
- within 3 weeks of taking office he agreed new pay deal with the BMA hoping to end the resident doctors strike but it didn't - and he was then "very effective at reminding everyone how much money he'd given them, but less effective sorting out the other reasons doctors are abandoning the NHS!.
- during his 677 days in office the number of "pathways" where a patient is waiting to start treatments fall to 7.1 ... but failed to mention the unreported removals from the waiting lists increase from 250000 to 350000 a month "Whether these patients needed to be removed or whether they end up being re-added at a later date in worse health remains to be seen".
Sorry that's a bit longer than planned but I didn't want to be accused of cherry picking!! :-)
And while I don't take what they say as gospel, it often feels like there's an amount of insight you just don't get in the national press.
|
Burnham needs to have a contest - even if he seems (sadly IMHO) the favourite.
Otherwise it will seem a stitch up - elected in Makerfield in a vote that was as much about "get rid of Starmer" as support for Labour - note the overwhelming Reform vote only a month ago.
Tories were criticised for the election of Truss and Sunak as they had no mandate from the electorate. At least they were elected by the whole party, not a coronation based on a skewed vote in one constituency!!
|
>> Tories were criticised for the election of Truss and Sunak as they had no mandate
>> from the electorate. At least they were elected by the whole party, not a coronation
>> based on a skewed vote in one constituency!!
All 3,500 of them from Royal Lemington Spa.
|
>>
>> All 3,500 of them from Royal Lemington Spa.
>>
I think at least one of them was "Disgusted, of Tunbridge Wells".
|
>>
>> >> Tories were criticised for the election of Truss and Sunak as they had no
>> mandate
>> >> from the electorate. At least they were elected by the whole party, not a
>> coronation
>> >> based on a skewed vote in one constituency!!
>>
>> All 3,500 of them from Royal Lemington Spa.
Don't understand - MPs reduce candidates to two - there is no point in putting a candidate forward with whom other MPs can't work. The membership of 100k+ then vote.
They come from across the country - although there may be disproportionate numbers in Leamington Spa and leafy bits of Surrey!
|
>> At least they were elected by the whole party, not a coronation
>> based on a skewed vote in one constituency!!
Elected by the whole party was what gave us Johnson and Truss. The Tory party is a tiny electorate whose average age is probably greater than that of those gathered here.
Party also gave us IDS I think but at least he was in opposition.
Corbyn too though that was a mash up of even greater proportion as those nominating him didn't understand he might win. And if the 2017 campaign had been a week longer he could have been PM.
As a means of selecting a party leader to become PM election by the party membership should be a non starter.
The UK's constitutional understanding is that PM is the MP leading the party that commands a majority in the Commons. If Burnham was properly elected to the House and can command a majority of its MPs then he is PM.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 21 Jun 26 at 13:09
|
Quote on Andy Burnham by a Cabinet minister:
“He’s not the Messiah, he’s just a very Northern boy. “
|
I'm sure I still get a vote being a Unison member.
|
The Tory party
>> is a tiny electorate whose average age is probably greater than that of those gathered
>> here.
Makerfield which may give us Burnham as PM has the following characteristics:
- averagely older than the UK average
- 94% white british vs 76% nationally
- more home owners not renters
- 27% degree level or above vs 37% nationally
No more representative of the UK as a whole than the Tory party membership. With respect to those who live there - probably more ignorant having had a lesser education, and with only a very local perspective.
>> As a means of selecting a party leader to become PM election by the party membership should be a non starter
Probably rather better than a single skewed local community, unable to muster a coherent consistent thought, who only a month ago would have returned a reform candidate with an overwhelming majority dwarfing Burnhams.
>> The UK's constitutional understanding is that PM is the MP leading the party that commands
>> a majority in the Commons. If Burnham was properly elected to the House and can
>> command a majority of its MPs then he is PM.
I agree - first amongst equals etc ..............
|
I often criticise American politics but we have the possibility of a guy who wasn’t an MP on Thursday, could be leading the country at some point this week.
Gets us very close to “famous personality” becoming prime minister. And when Burnham doesn’t work out, another MP could stand aside to let the flavour of the day stand and be fast tracked.
Not how it should work out.
|
>> Gets us very close to “famous personality” becoming prime minister. And when Burnham doesn’t work
>> out, another MP could stand aside to let the flavour of the day stand and
>> be fast tracked.
Burnham is an experienced politician and MP who after being in Cabinet and standing twice for leadership decided his time was better spent as Mayor of Manchester.
Starmer running aground due to not being able to 'do' politics wasn't something the commentariat showed much insight into during the 2019 leadership campaign or, so far as I can remember in the second half of 2024.
If he was a 'famous chancer' I don't think he'd have got a majority of 9,000.
Maybe Canada's PM is an example of how this might pan out.
|
>>
>> Starmer running aground due to not being able to 'do' politics wasn't something the commentariat
>> showed much insight into during the 2019 leadership campaign or, so far as I can
>> remember in the second half of 2024.
>>
>> If he was a 'famous chancer' I don't think he'd have got a majority of
>> 9,000.
>>
>> Maybe Canada's PM is an example of how this might pan out.
>>
Starmer ran aground from the perspective of the public pretty quickly, when his politically inept acceptance of more freebies and gifts than the last 4 conservative prime minsters combined came to light, at at time his government was attempting to cut welfare. His approval rating plummeted, and he became toxic to the party almost immediately. And the welfare cuts failed, with the bizarre outcome than a leader with the biggest majority for however many years couldn’t actually get any policies through parliament. Assuming he had a plan in the first place… So it was being reported by the press, or pursued if one is of a left leaning inclination, through the second half of 2024. I though it was well know that Starmer wasn’t politically savvy well before that, but perhaps I m wrong!
If he’d just had a teeny bit of political nouse and self respect, instead of entitlement and arrogance, and not accepted so many freebies, his reputation as a dull but worthy plodder might have remained intact and perhaps his style of Government could have achieved something. Instead the infighting has set them and the country back. Burnham by all accounts was doing a good job s mayor of Manchester, but he’s left that. Streeting was doing a good job in Health, but he’s left that. Jess Phillips was doing a good job for women, but she resigned as well. And here we are.
Still, as he and Rayner were extremely vocal about the changes in Conservative Party leadership needing a general election (though of course not constitutionally required at all) I look forward to them both sticking to their principles ;)
|
>> Still, as he and Rayner were extremely vocal about the changes in Conservative Party leadership
>> needing a general election (though of course not constitutionally required at all) I look forward
>> to them both sticking to their principles ;)
Given their own record and the current polls I don't think Badenoch will be calling for a GE!!
|
|
Indeed, which means Burnham should go for it and get a 5 year mandate, if he believes he’s the man for the job!!
|
>> Indeed, which means Burnham should go for it and get a 5 year mandate, if
>> he believes he’s the man for the job!!
I think the last incomer to call an immediate election was Eden in 1955.
Nobody since has done so witihn a year.
|
|
Indeed, but also the opposition party (as was) didn’t used to call for a general election every time there was a change in leader. Labour, having started this nonsense, probably ought to be consistent. Oh, hang on… ;)
|
>> Indeed, but also the opposition party (as was) didn’t used to call for a general
>> election every time there was a change in leader. Labour, having started this nonsense, probably
>> ought to be consistent. Oh, hang on… ;)
Come off it Peter. It only seems that way becuase of the procession of Tory PMs since Cameron fell which was almost exactly ten years ago.
When Callaghan replaced Wilson and Brown replaced Blair the Tories were baying for a GE.
|
Callaghan was before my time I’m afraid…sorry! I was three when he was elected I think. Though I don’t recall the Brown / Blair transition as I wasn’t living in the country, so maybe there was the same clamour. But at least Brown was already in the Governemnt, and not parachuted in by an entirely legitimate but at the same time slightly dodgy looking process :)
|
>> Callaghan was before my time I’m afraid…sorry!
Remember it well, I was 16 and in my O level year.
Announcement reached us in early afternoon and our history master gave as a civics lesson on how the PM changed without a GE.
|
>> >> Callaghan was before my time I’m afraid…sorry!
>>
>> Remember it well, I was 16 and in my O level year.
>>
>> Announcement reached us in early afternoon and our history master gave as a civics lesson
>> on how the PM changed without a GE.
>>
Just thinking aloud, but if a change in Prime Minster did mean that a general election had to be called, wouldn’t it it make a party less likely to turf out its leader mid-term, and would it lead to better or worse Government…?
|
>> Just thinking aloud, but if a change in Prime Minster did mean that a general
>> election had to be called, wouldn’t it it make a party less likely to turf
>> out its leader mid-term, and would it lead to better or worse Government…?
That would certainly be a possibility.
It would also create all kinds of difficulty where, as was the case with Eden, Macmillan and Wilson the PM was standing down due to ill health.
|
|
Yes, ill health is a fly in the ointment to that approach. Though one would think that that’s when the deputy PM (do we have one of those at the moment?) would step in and continue the vision and policy of the departing PM. And I guess in recent times illness is less frequent than insurrection among MPs, so maybe it’s a price worth paying!
|
>> Yes, ill health is a fly in the ointment to that approach. Though one would
>> think that that’s when the deputy PM (do we have one of those at the
>> moment?) would step in and continue the vision and policy of the departing PM. And
>> I guess in recent times illness is less frequent than insurrection among MPs, so maybe
>> it’s a price worth paying!
Do you mean a Deputy PM would function like the US 'Veep' and permanently assume the role?
That would be constitutionally significant.
Current deputy is David Lammy; likely a consolation prize for being demoted from one of the 'Great Offices' rather then his merit.
We've been lucky with ill health in recent year. Who was the last Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet Minister to die in harness or step down on health grounds?
Insurrection did for May. Arguably BoJo but in his case it was down to him being a lazy charlatan. Truss fell to her own incompetence and stupidity.
|
>> Indeed, but also the opposition party (as was) didn’t used to call for a general
>> election every time there was a change in leader. Labour, having started this nonsense, probably
>> ought to be consistent. Oh, hang on… ;)
>>
Standard politics really, demand x then when its your turn explain how it's completely different.
|
>> Given their own record and the current polls I don't think Badenoch will be calling
>> for a GE!!
Current polls make it impossible to judge what his best option is - a very messy coalition is the likely outcome. Burnham has a choice:
- wait 3 years and hope his premiership delivers sufficient for a Labour GE victory, or
- go this autumn hoping to benefit from a Burnham poll boost before reality kicks in
Badenoch and Farage will call for a GE - empty rhetoric which will get them a few column inches and media exposure only as they have no control.
Last edited by: Terry on Mon 22 Jun 26 at 10:03
|
>> Badenoch and Farage will call for a GE - empty rhetoric which will get them
>> a few column inches and media exposure only as they have no control.
Farage had messaged his Substack readers calling for an election witihn a few minutes of KS going back inside number 10.
As above I don't think even Badenoch has sufficient lack of self awareness to call for one given the Tories record.
Actually I was wrong about Tory incomers not calling a GE. May did after about ten months but not on the principle - she couldn't get Brexit through without the super majority she though a summer 2017 poll would deliver.
And that nearly put Corbyn in number 10.
|
>> I often criticise American politics
We voted in our own "trump". BoJo
Blame no-one but the electorate.
|
>> I often criticise American politics but we have the possibility of a guy who wasn’t
>> an MP on Thursday, could be leading the country at some point this week.
>>
>> Gets us very close to “famous personality” becoming prime minister. And when Burnham doesn’t work
>> out, another MP could stand aside to let the flavour of the day stand and
>> be fast tracked.
>>
>> Not how it should work out.
You make an excellent point. Ac quick goog;e search throws out the following UK’s top influencers:
- Lifestyle & Beauty: Molly-Mae Hague (Love Island star & major fashion entrepreneur)
- Stacey Solomon: Fitness & Wellness:
- Joe Wicks continues to dominate with massive national fame for his home workouts
- Mrs. Hinch - the premier figure for household organization and lifestyle tips
- Joe Sugg - engaged audiences and broader media ventures
- Francis Bourgeois (the internet-famous trainspotter) representing quirky British authenticity.
Perhaps Westminster is behind the times in mobilising popular suuport opportunities.
|
>> Gets us very close to “famous personality” becoming prime minister. ........Not how it should work out.>>
Quite so. It didn't work out so well in eastern Europe after a similar event 7yrs ago :(
|
>> No more representative of the UK as a whole than the Tory party membership. With
>> respect to those who live there - probably more ignorant having had a lesser education,
>> and with only a very local perspective.
>>
I find the lesser education comment to be verging on offensive - thick northerners.
The electors of Makerfield have done what the Scots taught us.
Vote for party a for one purpose and b for another.
The tiny combined vote for Tory/LibDem/Green suggests some thoughtful tactical voting to keep Refuk out.
|
>>
>> I find the lesser education comment to be verging on offensive - thick northerners.
>>
It's not verging on.......
(But I speak as a Northerner with an abandoned degree level education, so what do I know?)
|
>> It's not verging on.......
>>
>> (But I speak as a Northerner with an abandoned degree level education, so what do
>> I know?)
Didn't even embark on so as to abandon
Decided in 1978 that a job offer in hand was worth two in a bush c1981.
|
>> >> respect to those who live there - probably more ignorant having had a lesser
>> education,
>>
>> I find the lesser education comment to be verging on offensive - thick northerners.
That is precisely why I prefaced the remark "with respect". It would otherwise be understandably insulting.
Like remarks suggesting elderly Tory party members are somehow so out of touch as to be incapable of a legitimate viewpoint - they have many more years experience of how the world really works and their veiws should not be lightly disimissed.
|
Like remarks suggesting elderly Tory party members are somehow so out of touch as to
>> be incapable of a legitimate viewpoint - they have many more years experience of how
>> the world really works and their veiws should not be lightly disimissed.
>>
>
And with all those many years of real world experience they choose Truss. Perhaps they aren't in touch as much as they think they are.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 21 Jun 26 at 19:43
|
>>
>> That is precisely why I prefaced the remark "with respect". It would otherwise be understandably
>> insulting.
>>
With respect, prefacing something with "with respect" doesn't diminish or excuse the sentiment following, it merely flags that the writer is about to state something critical, challenging or unwelcome (to an audience).
I can't think of a context wherein this would be anything but the author's views, so I double down: it is offensive (or insulting if you wish).
|
>> Like remarks suggesting elderly Tory party members are somehow so out of touch as to
>> be incapable of a legitimate viewpoint - they have many more years experience of how
>> the world really works and their veiws should not be lightly disimissed.
I too would suggest that by voting in Truss, they are more than out of touch, and certainly incapable.
|
>> Like remarks suggesting elderly Tory party members are somehow so out of touch as to
>> be incapable of a legitimate viewpoint - they have many more years experience of how
>> the world really works and their veiws should not be lightly disimissed.
I think the words I'm looking for are self selecting....
|
No more representative of the UK as a whole than the Tory party membership. With
>> respect to those who live there - probably more ignorant having had a lesser education,
>> and with only a very local perspective.
>>
>> >> As a means of selecting a party leader to become PM election by the
>> party membership should be a non starter
>>
>> Probably rather better than a single skewed local community, unable to muster a coherent consistent
>> thought, who only a month ago would have returned a reform candidate with an overwhelming
>> majority dwarfing Burnhams.
>>
>>
>>
A single skewed local community vote doesn't get him in as PM, just an MP. The voters in Makerfield have no more power than any other constituency.
Perhaps we should look to those higher, they could give us absolute barn storming PMs like Truss. Just the ticket.
|
|
Burnham would have won in virtually any Labour constituency, and in many Tory ones too. The electorate have had enough of Starmer and want him out.
|
|
.. or at least that's what the press tells them...
|
|
Looks like streeting has backed out of a leadership contest.
|
>> Looks like streeting has backed out of a leadership contest.
Confirmed in media announcement:
x.com/wesstreeting/status/2068998920689062168
|
Starmer's policies have met reasonable success in a poor economic environment. His biggest failure has been failing to communicate his succeses. Yes he has made mistakes not cutting welfare enough, but that's the fault of the left wing of of his party. Cue Burnham...
Whoever becomes the next PM willl need a very thick skin and you can guarantee that they will face the same onslaught from the Telegraph, Times, Mail, Express, etc. that Starer did. And as for Farage calling for a GE: "that's not how things work in the UK!"
|
I have no doubts about Starmers basic decency and values, I am sure he wants to do the best for everyone with what was available. I dont doubt his astuteness or toughness, which he proved when he managed to get the really looney left silenced and the other shades of lefties pulling together.
He is however an appaling communicator, lacks any charisma, displays little confidence, unable to inspire, convince. When it all starts to get a bit tricky and sticky, and you cant articulate a way through the swamp, you are history.
|
I thought this was quite a sensible summing up of Starmer and why he lost his job after one of the most stunning GE results in recent history:
www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2026/jun/22/the-rise-and-fall-of-keir-starmer-where-did-it-all-go-wrong
I have been appalled at the non-stop vitriol hurled at him on every pretext by the right-wing press (most egregiously by the Daily Express) and the manufactured outrage at every trivial incident.
I'm not a Starmer fan - never was, from way back - but I think he was a decent enough individual most of the time.
Last edited by: James Loveless on Mon 22 Jun 26 at 17:45
|
Rachel Reeves, Liz Kendall, David Lammy and Lord Hermer amongst Ministers told their services are no longer required.
Hermer and to a slightly lesser extent Lammy were criticised by the Lady Chief Justice last week in a follow on to the resentencing of two boys who initially avoided a custodial sentence for rape.
rozenberg.substack.com/p/carr-lays-down-the-law-39f
Hermer may well have been in a position where his continuing in post was untenable.
Lammy did a Liz Truss* and failed in his constitutional duty to defend the Judiciary.
* Truss as Lord Chancellor failed to speak up after the Mail attacked three Judges as 'enemies of the people' over a judgment about what needed to be done regarding Article 50 and Brexit.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 20 Jul 26 at 16:53
|
Too late to edit.
Rozenberg's Substack linked above is a post for his paid subscribers but Friday's summary to which he links looks as though it's free.
rozenberg.substack.com/p/attorney-falls-short
|
Dorries has Jumped. - Bromptonaut
