Conservative party/opposition watch

[UndercoverElephant]

It's certainly looking like a right mess for the Tories. It's being said that KK never wanted to go for the tax cuts in the mini budget as fast as what had happened. Apparently it was Truss who wanted these to happen quickly. Now we've got *unt pretty much at the helm. Nigel Farage is now talking about returning to front line politics. I think a Labour government is pretty much guaranteed.

Yes. The tories cannot win the next general election, and they know it. I suspect some of them actually believe the country needs a Labour government and that their party needs to be out of power in order to sort themselves out. See post above: not only is a Labour government guaranteed, but I believe it is coming sooner rather than later.

[Potemkin Villager]

It is possibly stating the bleeding obvious that the UK needs a Clement Atlee style of leadership
just now rather than a Thatcher style apparat. It was very impressive what the Labour
government achieved out of the financial and physical ruins of WWII so no pressure then Starmer!

[clv101]

Indeed, my great grandfather was a labour MP in that post war parliament. He was the first MP to speak in parliament about the dangers/problems of nuclear weapons.

I have little faith in Labour, or anyone pulling together the government we need for the coming decade.

[UndercoverElephant]

I have little faith in Labour, or anyone pulling together the government we need for the coming decade.

The Labour party is at least a coherent entity with a competent leader. No mainstream political party is prepared for what is coming, but there are still relative levels of un-preparedness. This tory government wouldn't even be capable of governing in much easier times.

[anotherexlurker]

Completely

General election is now looking like the most likely outcome. Truss will be gone by the end of next week, and the obvious replacement is Sunak. Sunak then has to choose between trying to limp through 2 years of painful political choices or taking advantage of a slight honeymoon effect and the credit given to him for "doing the right thing" by trying to get a mandate for those choices. Limping on is not a rational choice -- not when he's only got 2 years and the economy is in its current state. On top of that, if he tries to limp on then there's a very real risk that 30, 40 or even 50 tory MPs decide to cross the floor and join the Labour Party on condition that they are allowed to contest their seats for Labour. Sunak wouldn't even be expected to win the election. He would be given credit just for avoiding a wipeout and then he'll have five years as leader of the opposition to try to sort the tories out in preparation for an election in the summer of 2027. If I was Sunak, then I would make an early election a condition of taking over the leadership in the current situation. The alternative will be for him to lead the tories into utter oblivion.

I thought you followed politics I get the impression that you have not spent much time actually talking to MP's, MP candidates , local politicians , activists or even spent time knocking on doors speaking to the voting public and are basing your predictions on what you would do , without taking into consideration that the people making the decisions do not think in the same way as you do. I am trying to imagine being in the meeting when I announced that my cunning plan to avoid the Tories being wiped out at a general election , was to call an election at the very time they risk being wiped out, many of the local activists will have made it clear they will not be helping and the election could even coincide with rolling blackouts. I think my new nickname would be Baldrick!!! Remember that in Politics, War and other areas of life you try not to do the very thing that your opponent would most like you to do. The idea that if Sunak became leader and called a general election he would get voters to support him because he has done the right thing is for the birds.

All the evidence that I have seen suggests to me that a general election is not on the cards and as I stated at the start Truss will be thrown under the bus and replaced (a full leadership contest is very unlikely), last week the rumour was Wallace, I think there would be some justice if Sunak got to inherit the mess that he was in part responsible for creating (pouring fire on an overheated housing market, wasting billions with poor covid decisions, supporting too low interest rates etc) , the final outcome will most likely be down to who has the least enemies and can do the most back room deals (Someone who's political career is almost certainly over and is heading for retirement could be a good choice).

I agree that the situation is most likely to deteriorate over the next 12-18 months , recession, tax rises, spending cuts, high interest rates (relative to recent years), housing market falling , repossessions with negative equity , job losses etc are all likely , but most Tory MP's would take clinging onto power for possibly 2 years rather than take almost certain defeat now (some might not get another chance to be in power). Anything could happen in the next 2 years (for example a full hot war with Russia can not be completely ruled out ) , who can say that back in 2019 they could have predicted much of what has actually happened over the last 3 years AND been accurate to the timescale?

[UndercoverElephant]

Completely

General election is now looking like the most likely outcome. Truss will be gone by the end of next week, and the obvious replacement is Sunak. Sunak then has to choose between trying to limp through 2 years of painful political choices or taking advantage of a slight honeymoon effect and the credit given to him for "doing the right thing" by trying to get a mandate for those choices. Limping on is not a rational choice -- not when he's only got 2 years and the economy is in its current state. On top of that, if he tries to limp on then there's a very real risk that 30, 40 or even 50 tory MPs decide to cross the floor and join the Labour Party on condition that they are allowed to contest their seats for Labour. Sunak wouldn't even be expected to win the election. He would be given credit just for avoiding a wipeout and then he'll have five years as leader of the opposition to try to sort the tories out in preparation for an election in the summer of 2027. If I was Sunak, then I would make an early election a condition of taking over the leadership in the current situation. The alternative will be for him to lead the tories into utter oblivion.

I thought you followed politics I get the impression that you have not spent much time actually talking to MP's, MP candidates , local politicians , activists or even spent time knocking on doors speaking to the voting public and are basing your predictions on what you would do , without taking into consideration that the people making the decisions do not think in the same way as you do. I am trying to imagine being in the meeting when I announced that my cunning plan to avoid the Tories being wiped out at a general election , was to call an election at the very time they risk being wiped out....

As already explained, it is your thinking which is naive and simplistic, not mine. Not everybody in politics is as stupid as you apparently believe them to be. Your argument is based on the unexamined assumption that now is the worst time to go for an election - you are assuming, without any justification whatsoever, that if they play for time then an election in 2 years time offers them a better prospect of avoiding a wipeout. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that the longer they continue without an election, the worse their prospects will get. Immediately after replacing Truss is not the worst possible time to go for an election, but the only chance they've got of avoiding that wipeout. You are assuming the risk will actually decrease as a Sunak premiership unfolds. Why on Earth do you think that, given that we know an absolute economic shitstorm is coming?

The idea that if Sunak became leader and called a general election he would get voters to support him because he has done the right thing is for the birds.

That isn't what I said. I clearly said he cannot win, regardless of when he calls the election. The idea that calling a general election very soon after taking over is for the birds is itself for the birds. You think your beliefs are obviously true. They are not. You are completely wrong. The longer he leaves it before calling an election, the worse the result will be for the tories.

I agree that the situation is most likely to deteriorate over the next 12-18 months , recession, tax rises, spending cuts, high interest rates (relative to recent years), housing market falling , repossessions with negative equity , job losses etc are all likely , but most Tory MP's would take clinging onto power for possibly 2 years rather than take almost certain defeat now (some might not get another chance to be in power).

Why? Why take absolute certain defeat in 2 years time when they might hold on to their seats now?

Anything could happen in the next 2 years (for example a full hot war with Russia can not be completely ruled out ) , who can say that back in 2019 they could have predicted much of what has actually happened over the last 3 years AND been accurate to the timescale?

Nothing likely to happen in the next 2 years is going to save this tory party from losing the next election.

[anotherexlurker]

General election is now looking like the most likely outcome. Truss will be gone by the end of next week, and the obvious replacement is Sunak. Sunak then has to choose between trying to limp through 2 years of painful political choices or taking advantage of a slight honeymoon effect and the credit given to him for "doing the right thing" by trying to get a mandate for those choices. Limping on is not a rational choice -- not when he's only got 2 years and the economy is in its current state. On top of that, if he tries to limp on then there's a very real risk that 30, 40 or even 50 tory MPs decide to cross the floor and join the Labour Party on condition that they are allowed to contest their seats for Labour. Sunak wouldn't even be expected to win the election. He would be given credit just for avoiding a wipeout and then he'll have five years as leader of the opposition to try to sort the tories out in preparation for an election in the summer of 2027. If I was Sunak, then I would make an early election a condition of taking over the leadership in the current situation. The alternative will be for him to lead the tories into utter oblivion.

I thought you followed politics I get the impression that you have not spent much time actually talking to MP's, MP candidates , local politicians , activists or even spent time knocking on doors speaking to the voting public and are basing your predictions on what you would do , without taking into consideration that the people making the decisions do not think in the same way as you do. I am trying to imagine being in the meeting when I announced that my cunning plan to avoid the Tories being wiped out at a general election , was to call an election at the very time they risk being wiped out....

As already explained, it is your thinking which is naive and simplistic, not mine. Not everybody in politics is as stupid as you apparently believe them to be. Your argument is based on the unexamined assumption that now is the worst time to go for an election - you are assuming, without any justification whatsoever, that if they play for time then an election in 2 years time offers them a better prospect of avoiding a wipeout. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that the longer they continue without an election, the worse their prospects will get. Immediately after replacing Truss is not the worst possible time to go for an election, but the only chance they've got of avoiding that wipeout. You are assuming the risk will actually decrease as a Sunak premiership unfolds. Why on Earth do you think that, given that we know an absolute economic shitstorm is coming?

The idea that if Sunak became leader and called a general election he would get voters to support him because he has done the right thing is for the birds.

That isn't what I said. I clearly said he cannot win, regardless of when he calls the election. The idea that calling a general election very soon after taking over is for the birds is itself for the birds. You think your beliefs are obviously true. They are not. You are completely wrong. The longer he leaves it before calling an election, the worse the result will be for the tories.

I agree that the situation is most likely to deteriorate over the next 12-18 months , recession, tax rises, spending cuts, high interest rates (relative to recent years), housing market falling , repossessions with negative equity , job losses etc are all likely , but most Tory MP's would take clinging onto power for possibly 2 years rather than take almost certain defeat now (some might not get another chance to be in power).

Why? Why take absolute certain defeat in 2 years time when they might hold on to their seats now?

Anything could happen in the next 2 years (for example a full hot war with Russia can not be completely ruled out ) , who can say that back in 2019 they could have predicted much of what has actually happened over the last 3 years AND been accurate to the timescale?

Nothing likely to happen in the next 2 years is going to save this tory party from losing the next election.

I seem to recall that many (perhaps yourself?) were convinced on multiple occasions that Jermy Corbin was playing a blinder and that Johnson would be gone in days , convinced that their way of thinking meant it had to happen. You are the one assuming that Sunak will be the next leader in the first place , I am saying that even that is not as sure as you seem to think. In the summer of 2014 I was told by various Scotnats that I was wrong that Johnson could ever be prime minster and very wrong that Scotland would vote to remain in the UK, I was told in 2016 that I was wrong that we would vote to leave the EU and wrong Johnson could not make leader this time. In June 2018 I was told I was wrong that May would be replaced by Johnson who would be the person to get the Brexit legislation through.(Obviously I have been wrong on many things as well , I even had money on Heseltine to succeed Thatcher!!(fortunately shorting shares for Majors 1992 election more than made up for it)).

I have never had a conversation with a MP or been in a strategy meeting where the primary concern has been their chance of being elected in 2, 5, 10 years over how to get elected today or if already elected how to stay in power today,
obviously your real world actual experience is completely different to mine. My best guess is that currently around 200
Tory MP's believe their best chance of staying as an MP let alone as an MP for the party in power is to not have a general election until absolutely required. You seem to think that means that I believe that the conditions will be better in 2 years , yet I have never said that , a lot of Tory MP's will already have been informed by their local party chairman that currently it looks like they might be at the end of their career as an MP , in which case any time now is better than no time in the future and the situation could be completely different in 2 years time, in which case they have nothing to lose. I had some rather heated conversations when Sunak created/supported the conditions for the property price explosion based on crazy low interest rates that could only go up , I was told that's a potential future problem (That is how those you don't understand, actually think).

How many parties in power have deliberately called a general election years early that they look set to lose rather than risk/hope that the situation will be more favourable in the future?

I am wise enough to not make absolute predictions on which party is guaranteed to win the next general election, when we do not even know what year that election will be in (22,23,24,25), who will be the leader of any of the parties at the time (party leaders can die), what the policies of any of the parties will be at the time or what events at home or around the world will have happened between now and an election even being called.I obviously have a very different view on what is simplistic assumptions.

[automaticearth2]

Watching the Andrew Neil show on channel 4 (yeah, sad I know). They were talking about Truss being removed by the 'men in grey suits', to be replaced by 'ready for Rish!' Sunak. So, we had over a month of dithering, only to have the 2nd place person possibly take the helm. As Little John used to say, 'Jesus wept'....

[clv101]

The problem isn't so much that Liz Truss is a rubbish PM, most people would be, it's a *really* hard role to excel in. There's nothing unusual about Truss in that respect. The problem is that MPs and party members elevated someone so hopeless to high office. This in an internal party failure, a failure of policy, of imagination, of innovation. That their internal policies and processes led to this should lead to deep reform within the party to make sure nothing like this can happen again.

[automaticearth2]

The problem isn't so much that Liz Truss is a rubbish PM, most people would be, it's a *really* hard role to excel in. There's nothing unusual about Truss in that respect. The problem is that MPs and party members elevated someone so hopeless to high office. This in an internal party failure, a failure of policy, of imagination, of innovation. That their internal policies and processes led to this should lead to deep reform within the party to make sure nothing like this can happen again.

Sure, but do you think Labour will do any better, given the events that are facing us? Can you imagine what luminaries such Emily Thornberry, or Diane Abbot will be like?

[Mark]

The problem isn't so much that Liz Truss is a rubbish PM, most people would be, it's a *really* hard role to excel in. There's nothing unusual about Truss in that respect. The problem is that MPs and party members elevated someone so hopeless to high office. This in an internal party failure, a failure of policy, of imagination, of innovation. That their internal policies and processes led to this should lead to deep reform within the party to make sure nothing like this can happen again.

Sure, but do you think Labour will do any better, given the events that are facing us? Can you imagine what luminaries such Emily Thornberry, or Diane Abbot will be like?

So, is Jezza Hunt now the de facto PM ?

Would Labour do any better - well, let's be honest, they can't do any worse - we're currently in ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL CHAOS
Would Labour have their splits - sure they would, but Diane Abbott won't be anywhere near the Cabinet and I'd prefer Emily Thornberry to any of the Tory loony elements like Jacob Rees-Mogg, Chris Pincher, Priti Patel, Nadine Dorries, Kwasi Kwarteng, Michael Fabricant, Suella Braverman etc. etc...
I don't have any massive hopes for Labour, but the major 'plus' for me is that they'll look for money in the right places, ie high nett worth individuals and the mega corporations (windfall profits)

[Potemkin Villager]

I think it is a matter of stopping things getting worse and managing expectations. Post WW2 society was more cohesive than now and people inclined to follow orders after 5 years war. Even if they weren't, people felt they were all in it together. The Britain Unhinged cult and the current grotesque inequality and widespread legalised fraud, for example, needs to be robustly tackled with some sort of "untouchables" approach. If this was done and seen to be fairly done the population generally might be got behind some sort of sustainable recovery that involved the inevitable belt tightening all around.

[Catweazle]

Let's not kid ourselves that the Tory MPs want to be MPs, they want to be rich and powerful, being an MP is a means to that end but not the only route. I expect to see a lot of them clinging to their positions until the last possible moment, all the time making as many influential friends as possible to see them comfortably through their "retirement".

None of them want to be in charge of a basket-case economy, better to let Labour have it in two years time and move to the country ( or out of it ).

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... um=twitter

Meanwhile, plotting at Westminster continued with a group of senior Tory MPs, many of them supporters of Rishi Sunak, planning to meet on Monday night for dinner amid speculation that as many as 100 no confidence letters have been submitted to Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the backbench 1922 Committee.

If she hasn't gone by Wednesday then her own party will finish her off at PMQs.

[BritDownUnder]

Let's not kid ourselves that the Tory MPs want to be MPs, they want to be rich and powerful, being an MP is a means to that end but not the only route. I expect to see a lot of them clinging to their positions until the last possible moment, all the time making as many influential friends as possible to see them comfortably through their "retirement".

None of them want to be in charge of a basket-case economy, better to let Labour have it in two years time and move to the country ( or out of it ).

You are very right. It will be interesting to see what Kwasi Kwarteng gets up to in the next few years.

With regard to Labour this seems to be the method in Australia to let the Labor Party in Australia be hamstrung by not being able to spend. And they seem all the better for it.