Next temporary leader of the Conservative Party PM

[Fullerene]

2 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

I hope you're right, and you may be. But it's far from a given.

The electorate has never warmed to Starmer. He lacks charisma, and it's easy (and fair) for the media to say he hasn't presented a coherent solution to the problems the country has. Labour need to be more aggressive in getting a message out about how exactly they are an alternative to what we have now. They're failing to do that just now, and Johnson will lap that up.

BJ gets the big calls right, he was a victim of the political establishment stabbing him in the back, he understands working people, Starmer is boring and Labour have no plan anyway. Repeat, repeat, repeat, and delay the election as long as possible, and the Tories can win.

I'm not saying they'd suddenly be favourites. But the idea that they couldn't win is gone if BJ comes back. I think the Tories would be insane to pick anyone else from a purely pragmatic point of view.

IIRC Clement Attlee was regarded as pretty boring compared to Churchill.

It is also said that Trump made a mistake referring to Biden as "Sleepy Joe".  People liked the idea of a president who just got on with the job as opposed to one who performed one stunt after another.

At the moment, Labour have little to gain by distracting attention away from the disastrous Tories.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Richey Edwards said:

If you were watching films with someone and they picked two films in a row that turned out to be the worst you had ever seen, would you let them pick again?

No, of course you wouldn't. Then why would anyone want to let the same people who picked Boris Johnson and Liz Truss pick a PM again?

You can apply the same logic to the people in the country who voted Conservative knowing what was likely going to happen.

That's the problem with Democracy when a high percentage of your population are complete ignorant morons.

[Bad Wolf]

I don't like tribal politics or vilifying one's political opponents out of hand, but it is very hard not to conclude that Tories are c*nts. All of them, as the non-c*nt fringe have been thoroughly purged.

 

I welcome short-term chaos if it leads to the longer-term change that I want, while simultaneously I freely confess greatly enjoying the sweet taste of schadenfreude as the country that deserves to be destroyed destroys itself, but at the same time I never have and never will forgive any of those c*nts for the way they behaved during the first lockdown, during which my closest friend died of cancer. I was unable to attend her funeral due to lockdown restrictions, which I would never have dreamt of breaking. Unlike those c*nts.

[sparky88]

1 minute ago, WATTOO said:

You can apply the same logic to the people in the country who voted Conservative knowing what was likely going to happen.

That's the problem with Democracy when a high percentage of your population are complete ignorant morons.

But the Tory Party have a choice who picks their leader and therefore PM. Can't do anything about the electorate. 

Better for everyone if the members don't have any choice. They have control over who becomes an MP, that's more than enough. 

[Granny Danger]

Johnson’s supporters are already up to their dirty tricks.  This has been attached to the gates at Downing Street!

 

[Monkey Tennis]

20 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I’m not sure if Johnson has ever done anything for the good of anyone but himself.

If Johnson gets the 100 threshold he will be under great pressure from the Tory membership and the ERG types to stand.  They won’t want a brown ‘moderate’ foisted on them.

Yes, I tend to agree.

I think that whether Johnson reaches the 100 figure with MPs is virtually the only important variable right now.

If he does, surely he stands.  He can use the idea of his 2019 mandate to justify it.  If he stands, especially against only Sunak, he wins I'd imagine.

I don't think a scenario where Sunak has way more parliamentary support, would deter him.

 

It's truly staggering that such a thing is conceivable, but it is.  The only barrier involves just how many Tory MPs are quite this reprehensible.  

[btb]

13 minutes ago, Caledonian1 said:

Why would he?  If he gets to 100 MP backers then it is very much game on as he will then be up against Sunak with a very different electorate voting - one that is blind to this economy nonsense and would far rather see their second coming of Churchill than a wee brown person at PM

His ego, he hasn't officially declared yet because he doesn't want to "officially" lose, if he's not 100% certain he'll win I don't see him taking it to a ballot. I think this applies to Sunak as well but to a lesser extent.

Having said all that the geriatocracy that makes up the Tory party membership are clearly batshit crazy so Johnson may well feel he has nothing to lose.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, sparky88 said:

But the Tory Party have a choice who picks their leader and therefore PM. Can't do anything about the electorate. 

Better for everyone if the members don't have any choice. They have control over who becomes an MP, that's more than enough. 

I'd actually disagree as I believe a party membership SHOULD be the ONLY ones picking the leader and also replacing the leader. 

The chaos inside Labour under Corbyn with all the Right wing plotters led by Watson etc and the current chaos inside the Tory party with plotters from all sides, confirms exactly why the MP's should have no say whatsoever, if that's what happens when they do.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I'd actually disagree as I believe a party membership SHOULD be the ONLY ones picking the leader and also replacing the leader. 
The chaos inside Labour under Corbyn with all the Right wing plotters led by Watson etc and the current chaos inside the Tory party with plotters from all sides, confirms exactly why the MP's should have no say whatsoever, if that's what happens when they do.

By your argument, if MPs have no confidence in the Prime Minister there should not be a General Election.

[Dunfermline Don]

29 minutes ago, WATTOO said:

I'd actually disagree as I believe a party membership SHOULD be the ONLY ones picking the leader and also replacing the leader. 

The chaos inside Labour under Corbyn with all the Right wing plotters led by Watson etc and the current chaos inside the Tory party with plotters from all sides, confirms exactly why the MP's should have no say whatsoever, if that's what happens when they do.

It is one of the reasons we need a proper written constitution.

 I see no issue with the membership having a say in picking the leader of a political party. However should they be able to decide who is going to be PM?

It has certainly worked well with Liz Truss didn’t it. The UKs international reputation is now the lowest it has ever been.

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, Dunfermline Don said:

It is one of the reasons we need a proper written constitution.

 I see no issue with the membership having a say in picking the leader of a political party. However should they be able to decide who is going to be PM?

It has certainly worked well with Liz Truss didn’t it. The UKs international reputation is now the lowest it has ever been.

Yes.  If Sturgeon dropped down dead tomorrow I’d want the membership of the SNP to elect her replacement.

[BFTD]

Mind when we used to laugh about what a bunch of losers the Italians were for repeatedly voting for openly sleazy scammers like Berlusconi?  

I'm probably missing something here, but I don't know why Boris would want to go back to this. He's a notoriously bone-idle chancer whose immense sense of entitlement dates back to Eton, as a matter of record. He's managed to get himself a few years at the top table, which will have feathered his nest beautifully, and he'll spend the rest of his life milking advisory board roles and speaking engagements to bring in millions, not to mention that fat expenses slate that continues in perpetuity. He openly disliked the job of Prime Minister, as a certain amount of work was expected, and he does not like work one bit.

Likewise with Trump, but he has the spectacular ego that might see him run again for a job he detested, purely to salve the wounds of being rejected. Is it just the same for Britain Trump?

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, BFTD said:

Mind when we used to laugh about what a bunch of losers the Italians were for repeatedly voting for openly sleazy scammers like Berlusconi?  

I'm probably missing something here, but I don't know why Boris would want to go back to this. He's a notoriously bone-idle chancer whose immense sense of entitlement dates back to Eton, as a matter of record. He's managed to get himself a few years at the top table, which will have feathered his nest beautifully, and he'll spend the rest of his life milking advisory board roles and speaking engagements to bring in millions, not to mention that fat expenses slate that continues in perpetuity. He openly disliked the job of Prime Minister, as a certain amount of work was expected, and he does not like work one bit.

Likewise with Trump, but he has the spectacular ego that might see him run again for a job he detested, purely to salve the wounds of being rejected. Is it just the same for Britain Trump?

I don't think he did hate the office of Prime Minister.

He had the ego and the detachment to not agonise over things.  He also really enjoyed the trappings of it all.  His self importance made all that stuff extremely appealing.

Sure, he didn't like what he saw as the measly money, but he knows that plenty of that stuff can wait for him later.

I'm certain he'd love another go.  He's a narcissist.

[BFTD]

7 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I don't think he did hate the office of Prime Minister.

He had the ego and the detachment to not agonise over things.  He also really enjoyed the trappings of it all.  His self importance made all that stuff extremely appealing.

Sure, he didn't like what he saw as the measly money, but he knows that plenty of that stuff can wait for him later.

I'm certain he'd love another go.  He's a narcissist.

There's also the fact that he'll be well aware that the government - whoever they are - are fucked for the foreseeable future, and will be dealing with the blame for the UK spiralling down the plughole. I can't see anyone wanting the job who isn't a true believer in the Brexit project of re-shaping British society and tearing apart human rights, which he'll see as little more than something amusing to pass time with.

[Fullerene]

56 minutes ago, WATTOO said:

I'd actually disagree as I believe a party membership SHOULD be the ONLY ones picking the leader and also replacing the leader. 

The chaos inside Labour under Corbyn with all the Right wing plotters led by Watson etc and the current chaos inside the Tory party with plotters from all sides, confirms exactly why the MP's should have no say whatsoever, if that's what happens when they do.

Your second paragraph indicates why your first paragraph will not work.

If there is a big difference between what the MPs want and what the membership wants then there will always be friction. There is no need to resort to tiresome conspiracy theory.  It will always happen.

Yes it sounds more democratic for the membership to decide but the membership will always be more ideological whereas MPs need to make it work.  Truss did what the membership wanted and it led to disaster.

Also, a majority of Tory MPs were against Brexit but the membership were got it.  Another disaster.  Seldom gets mentioned.

 

[Monkey Tennis]

I'm reaching the view that Johnson might not make the hundred backers.  

If b*****ds like Frost and Raab are saying it would be unwise, then I think he's struggling to get sufficient parliamentary support.  Any MP with reservations will know what will happen if Johnson gets as far as a members' vote.  

I'm not suggesting that morals are kicking in; but I think some pragmatism might be.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I'm reaching the view that Johnson might not make the hundred backers.  
If b*****ds like Frost and Raab are saying it would be unwise, then I think he's struggling to get sufficient parliamentary support.  Any MP with reservations will know what will happen if Johnson gets as far as a members' vote.  
I'm not suggesting that morals are kicking in; but I think some pragmatism might be.

He has the numbers now and could declare - not done so yet - waiting for Sunak's numbers?

And is Sunak not declared because he's waiting to see what Johnson does?

Behind the scenes horse-trading?

Mordaunt will drop out IMHO.

[Highlandmagar]

Johnson has the 100 backers. Seemingly.

[Brother Blades]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

Yes.  If Sturgeon dropped down dead tomorrow I’d want the membership of the SNP to elect her replacement.

Careful! You’ll be giving @Spongeheid an orgasm! 

[Monkey Tennis]

Christ, they're reporting that Johnson does now have the support.

I'm no Mystic Meg