Boris Johnson-Prime Minister (Vol 8)

[Tyre Smoke]

This is my problem. I'm really politically homeless.

What is it with the Cabinet and the party? Can they not see the damage Boris is doing? But, who is a credible alternative?

[ClaphamGT3]

Derek Smith said:

don'tbesilly said:

Derek Smith said:

bhstewie said:

And another interesting piece.

Tory whips have a plan to block new attempt to unseat Boris Johnson

Must admit I'm quite enjoying some pieces from The Telegraph lately

I think the real challenge will be at the party conference. If he's attacked from start to finish, and doesn't perform well on stage, he'll have to go.

What another real challenge?

How many real challenges have there been to date, I've lost count.

Sue Gray report 1 - "Johnson is toast"
Met Report - "Johnson is toast"
Sue Gray report 2 - "Johnson is toast"
VONC - "Johnson is toast"
Wakefield/Tiv - Hon by-elections - "Johnson will be toast" (perhaps)
Party Conference (if he survives till then) - "Johnson is toast".

There were numerous challenges before Sue Gray report 1, most of those were - "Johnson is toast" moments.

There seems to an awful lot of can-kicking in regards to - "Johnson is toast".

I doubt Johnson will be leading the tories into the next GE. The real question is when he will go. I doubt the party will change its rules, so a NC vote is unlikely. However:

The tory party conference is, unlike labour's, not required in their constitution. If they're in power, it's more of a party, a bit of preening, the old boy reunion. They want to display: themselves as well as their trophies. Everyone will be there: the faithful retainers, allowed in after all their work, to be patronised by those who can be bothered to turn up. There will also be the supporters who are funding the party. They are there to ensure they are getting their money's worth. If they are not, they have meetings, breakfasts and lunches with various cabinet ministers. This year they might well be cornering the pretenders, seeing what they will get for their purchases.

Murdoch might well have some to meetings, just before the conference is a warning sign to the leader, or after if it all went badly. This is when the deed will be done. This is when the whips get to discover who they will be damaging, and who they will support. The main conference room is for those outside the sphere of influence for most of the time. The standing ovation will be timed, and it will be interesting to see who remains seated.

The deal will be done by the important people, at invitation only meetings. Once they have Johnson in their crosshairs, he'll go.

I predicted back in Jan (cant be arsed to find the post) that this would be a slow motion car-crash that would lead to Johnson clinging on until after this year's conference at the earliest and probably until the next election. There is probably now another pivot point which is the anniversary of the confidence vote earlier this month.

[brickwall]

ClaphamGT3 said:

I predicted back in Jan (cant be arsed to find the post) that this would be a slow motion car-crash that would lead to Johnson clinging on until after this year's conference at the earliest and probably until the next election. There is probably now another pivot point which is the anniversary of the confidence vote earlier this month.

Agreed. Though worth noting the 1922 can change the rules and hold another No Confidence vote sooner (as was threatened ahead of May standing down).

You can’t say “X event will finish Boris”. Not a by election, not an interview, not a slew of resignations, nothing. He will not stand down voluntarily.

The only point where he will stop being PM is when he either
- Loses a Party no-confidence vote, or
- Loses a General Election

It’s fairly safe to assume that Boris will not call a GE until the very last minute. Therefore the question becomes
- What will cause the Party to call another No Confidence? (And when might that happen)
- Will Boris win or lose that vote?

[don'tbesilly]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Derek Smith said:

don'tbesilly said:

Derek Smith said:

bhstewie said:

And another interesting piece.

Tory whips have a plan to block new attempt to unseat Boris Johnson

Must admit I'm quite enjoying some pieces from The Telegraph lately

I think the real challenge will be at the party conference. If he's attacked from start to finish, and doesn't perform well on stage, he'll have to go.

What another real challenge?

How many real challenges have there been to date, I've lost count.

Sue Gray report 1 - "Johnson is toast"
Met Report - "Johnson is toast"
Sue Gray report 2 - "Johnson is toast"
VONC - "Johnson is toast"
Wakefield/Tiv - Hon by-elections - "Johnson will be toast" (perhaps)
Party Conference (if he survives till then) - "Johnson is toast".

There were numerous challenges before Sue Gray report 1, most of those were - "Johnson is toast" moments.

There seems to an awful lot of can-kicking in regards to - "Johnson is toast".

I doubt Johnson will be leading the tories into the next GE. The real question is when he will go. I doubt the party will change its rules, so a NC vote is unlikely. However:

The tory party conference is, unlike labour's, not required in their constitution. If they're in power, it's more of a party, a bit of preening, the old boy reunion. They want to display: themselves as well as their trophies. Everyone will be there: the faithful retainers, allowed in after all their work, to be patronised by those who can be bothered to turn up. There will also be the supporters who are funding the party. They are there to ensure they are getting their money's worth. If they are not, they have meetings, breakfasts and lunches with various cabinet ministers. This year they might well be cornering the pretenders, seeing what they will get for their purchases.

Murdoch might well have some to meetings, just before the conference is a warning sign to the leader, or after if it all went badly. This is when the deed will be done. This is when the whips get to discover who they will be damaging, and who they will support. The main conference room is for those outside the sphere of influence for most of the time. The standing ovation will be timed, and it will be interesting to see who remains seated.

The deal will be done by the important people, at invitation only meetings. Once they have Johnson in their crosshairs, he'll go.

I predicted back in Jan (cant be arsed to find the post) that this would be a slow motion car-crash that would lead to Johnson clinging on until after this year's conference at the earliest and probably until the next election. There is probably now another pivot point which is the anniversary of the confidence vote earlier this month.

Derek's convinced Johnson will be carried out at the end of the conference by the men in grey jackets and ousted as PM, your opinion seems to differ and he will probably limp on until the GE barring another no-confidence vote in another 12 months, so which is it?

Gone at the end of October? (after the conference in Blackpool. How will this come about?)
Gone after a second VONC? (in twelve months, under current 1922 rules)
Gone after the next GE? ( current Parliament automatically dissolves on 17th Dec 2024, unless HM dissolves it earlier due to a GE being called)

[BigMon]

I agree with a lot of the points above. Boris will have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of Downing Street. I'm fairly sure he sees himself as a modern day Churchill, not the inept buffoon a lot of us see, and certainly he's totally incapable of comprehending the damage he's dishing out to the Conservative party and the country.

To tell you the truth, I don't think he gives a shiny st about anyone but himsellf and any collateral damage can be shrugged off with a shake of the jester stick to the gallery.

Anyone with an ounce of comprehension and ability to do the right thing would have fallen on their sword long ago. But these are qualities sadly lacking in Boris.

If it was boom time I dare say he'd be brilliant, but he's not and never will be a Churchill.

[OzzyR1]

MrGTI6 said:

chrispmartha said:

Rufus Stone said:

chrispmartha said:

Talking of our Nadine…

Did I miss those nine world wars?

Did I miss who we are at war with now?

Ukraine according to Nadine

https://twitter.com/marcio_delgado/status/15340611...

What an utter moron. She's infinitely worse than Diane Abbott.

This is what is has come down to, discussing whether Dorries or Abbott would be better than the other. Jesus Christ.
Anyone with half a brain knows that neither of these are decent options, and either would be disastrous for the UK.

Talking with colleagues in the office today following the election results; we went through both the Conservative and Labour front benches person by person and no matter what voting preference anyone had, we could not find one individual that any of us would have enough belief/trust in to vote for them to be the next Prime Minister.

UK politics currently is a total s**tshow, how can there be no outstanding candidate in either rank that anyone can get behind. Backed up by the bookies views on next Conservative or Labour leader - no obvious favourite as they are all equally as useless.

As a presenter on Radio 4 said this morning; Thatcher, whether you loved her or hated her, you knew what she stood for, believed in and if you voted for her at the time you knew she would not deviate from that path.

The current politicians of all parties are utter cowards by comparison. Happy to say one thing in January then go back on it a month later, or sit on the fence sniping while not putting forward any ideas of their own. Not stating their own opinion till they think they can judge the mood of the public.

Torys, Labour or Dems have no defined manifest or plans for the future of the country, they are winging it and hoping they can stay / get into power and make it up as they go along.

Wa*kers. All of them.

[Seventy]

OzzyR1 said:

Wa*kers. All of them.

I’m not having that.

Rees-Mogg is a hero of mine and everyone should vote for him.

* if he was to stand, of course.

[CoolHands]

I think you have to blame modern media too. It doesn’t matter what a politician says or does, they always want what’s next.

We’ve just given everybody <1200 quid or whatever>
“Yes but that’s not new is it. What are you going to do to help Liz from Bournemouth who’s mum died all alone in a&e last night?” Etc

I think the press are just as reprehensible as politicians.

[OzzyR1]

CoolHands said:

I think you have to blame modern media too. It doesn’t matter what a politician says or does, they always want what’s next.

We’ve just given everybody <1200 quid or whatever>
“Yes but that’s not new is it. What are you going to do to help Liz from Bournemouth who’s mum died all alone in a&e last night?” Etc

I think the press are just as reprehensible as politicians.

Absolutely.

A lot of people seem to have forgotten that the Government (aka the taxpayer), funded the wages of millions of people via the furlough scheme over the last two years, prevented them from losing their jobs and enabled them to carry on almost as normal.

Whether you agree with lockdowns or not, we spent a horrendous amount of borrowed money to fund that, and if it kept folks in work that is a good thing.

It has to be paid back though and that will involve financial pain.

Fuelled by both mainstream and social media, it seems there is a substantial proportion of the UK population who genuinely believe that it is the Government's responsibility to give them more money to maintain their lifestyle as prices rise.

Big wake up call is due.

[vonuber]

OzzyR1 said:

Absolutely.

A lot of people seem to have forgotten that the Government (aka the taxpayer), funded the wages of millions of people via the furlough scheme over the last two years, prevented them from losing their jobs and enabled them to carry on almost as normal.

Whether you agree with lockdowns or not, we spent a horrendous amount of borrowed money to fund that, and if it kept folks in work that is a good thing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-61917259

"The chief executive of Birmingham Airport's pay has risen by 49% pay rise, it has emerged, angering trade unions.

Nick Barton's annual wage increased from £399,000 to £595,000 last year.

It came after large-scale job cuts in the sector in the wake of the pandemic."

"Staff shortages, among security staff in particular, have caused major issues for travellers at Birmingham Airport which received £12.8m of public money from the government to support it during the Covid pandemic."

[OzzyR1]

vonuber said:

OzzyR1 said:

Absolutely.

A lot of people seem to have forgotten that the Government (aka the taxpayer), funded the wages of millions of people via the furlough scheme over the last two years, prevented them from losing their jobs and enabled them to carry on almost as normal.

Whether you agree with lockdowns or not, we spent a horrendous amount of borrowed money to fund that, and if it kept folks in work that is a good thing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-61917259

"The chief executive of Birmingham Airport's pay has risen by 49% pay rise, it has emerged, angering trade unions.

Nick Barton's annual wage increased from £399,000 to £595,000 last year.

It came after large-scale job cuts in the sector in the wake of the pandemic."

Not sure of the relevance of that?

[turbobloke]

OzzyR1 said:

vonuber said:

OzzyR1 said:

Absolutely.

A lot of people seem to have forgotten that the Government (aka the taxpayer), funded the wages of millions of people via the furlough scheme over the last two years, prevented them from losing their jobs and enabled them to carry on almost as normal.

Whether you agree with lockdowns or not, we spent a horrendous amount of borrowed money to fund that, and if it kept folks in work that is a good thing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-61917259

"The chief executive of Birmingham Airport's pay has risen by 49% pay rise, it has emerged, angering trade unions.

Nick Barton's annual wage increased from £399,000 to £595,000 last year.

It came after large-scale job cuts in the sector in the wake of the pandemic."

Not sure of the relevance of that?

Looks like public sector mentality regardless of origin. Union dinosaurs think they should have a say on how much somebody else is paid. CEOs have two horns and a tail. The CEO should earn less because it's not fair.

If people don't like their job there are lots of vacancies, apply and get another. Assuming they're reasonably employable; if not whose fault would that be...probably Johnson.

[Welshbeef]

So Boris is saying Business and personal tax will be his main driver to get himself back to winning ways.


What taxes do we think and by how much? Also are they the right thing to do?

[anonymous-user]

OzzyR1 said:

A lot of people seem to have forgotten that the Government (aka the taxpayer), funded the wages of millions of people via the furlough scheme over the last two years, prevented them from losing their jobs and enabled them to carry on almost as normal.

Whether you agree with lockdowns or not, we spent a horrendous amount of borrowed money to fund that, and if it kept folks in work that is a good thing.

It has to be paid back though and that will involve financial pain.

Fuelled by both mainstream and social media, it seems there is a substantial proportion of the UK population who genuinely believe that it is the Government's responsibility to give them more money to maintain their lifestyle as prices rise.

Big wake up call is due.

I would suggest that repayment of the furlough scheme isn’t what’s sinking this administration, sleaze, lying and double standards are the key drivers here plus an imperative to get a decent PM.

[turbobloke]

Newarch said:

OzzyR1 said:

A lot of people seem to have forgotten that the Government (aka the taxpayer), funded the wages of millions of people via the furlough scheme over the last two years, prevented them from losing their jobs and enabled them to carry on almost as normal.

Whether you agree with lockdowns or not, we spent a horrendous amount of borrowed money to fund that, and if it kept folks in work that is a good thing.

It has to be paid back though and that will involve financial pain.

Fuelled by both mainstream and social media, it seems there is a substantial proportion of the UK population who genuinely believe that it is the Government's responsibility to give them more money to maintain their lifestyle as prices rise.

Big wake up call is due.

I would suggest that repayment of the furlough scheme isn’t what’s sinking this administration, sleaze, lying and double standards are the key drivers here plus an imperative to get a decent PM.

Don't surveys show that the public's main priorities are the cost of living crisis / energy / fuel / food prices? Not wallpaper, beer, cake, etc.

Lord Ashcroft polling in the by-election locations showed that while Johnson has lost some credibility (some!) there's "no appetite for another confidence vote, which many would see as a distraction from real priorities".

[Derek Smith]

don'tbesilly said:

Derek's convinced Johnson will be carried out at the end of the conference by the men in grey jackets and ousted as PM, your opinion seems to differ and he will probably limp on until the GE barring another no-confidence vote in another 12 months, so which is it?

Gone at the end of October? (after the conference in Blackpool. How will this come about?)
Gone after a second VONC? (in twelve months, under current 1922 rules)
Gone after the next GE? ( current Parliament automatically dissolves on 17th Dec 2024, unless HM dissolves it earlier due to a GE being called)

Don't suggest what I believe.

I said what I said in answer to your ignorance of what drives the tory party.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

Don't surveys show that the public's main priorities are the cost of living crisis / energy / fuel / food prices? Not wallpaper, beer, cake, etc.

Lord Ashcroft polling in the by-election locations showed that while Johnson has lost some credibility (some!) there's "no appetite for another confidence vote, which many would see as a distraction from real priorities".

I don’t know tbh but I suspect it’s a culmination of several factors. For example if Boris was really pulling up trees in other respects people might overlook wallpaper and cake. I would suggest he isn’t really.

As with the pandemic Boris does come across as rather do as I say not as I do, there is something disingenuous about a man on 160k a year telling people that they’ll have to accept below inflation wage rises.

[turbobloke]

Derek Smith said:

don'tbesilly said:

Derek's convinced Johnson will be carried out at the end of the conference by the men in grey jackets and ousted as PM, your opinion seems to differ and he will probably limp on until the GE barring another no-confidence vote in another 12 months, so which is it?

Gone at the end of October? (after the conference in Blackpool. How will this come about?)
Gone after a second VONC? (in twelve months, under current 1922 rules)
Gone after the next GE? ( current Parliament automatically dissolves on 17th Dec 2024, unless HM dissolves it earlier due to a GE being called)

Don't suggest what I believe.

I said what I said in answer to your ignorance of what drives the tory party.

Self-interest. Politics, but not news.

[bitchstewie]

don'tbesilly said:

Derek's convinced Johnson will be carried out at the end of the conference by the men in grey jackets and ousted as PM, your opinion seems to differ and he will probably limp on until the GE barring another no-confidence vote in another 12 months, so which is it?

Gone at the end of October? (after the conference in Blackpool. How will this come about?)
Gone after a second VONC? (in twelve months, under current 1922 rules)
Gone after the next GE? ( current Parliament automatically dissolves on 17th Dec 2024, unless HM dissolves it earlier due to a GE being called)

They simply have different opinions about the tipping points and the timing.

I thought you wanted Johnson gone too?

It seems odd to be gloating that he's clinging on if that's the case.

[don'tbesilly]

Derek Smith said:

don'tbesilly said:

Derek's convinced Johnson will be carried out at the end of the conference by the men in grey jackets and ousted as PM, your opinion seems to differ and he will probably limp on until the GE barring another no-confidence vote in another 12 months, so which is it?

Gone at the end of October? (after the conference in Blackpool. How will this come about?)
Gone after a second VONC? (in twelve months, under current 1922 rules)
Gone after the next GE? ( current Parliament automatically dissolves on 17th Dec 2024, unless HM dissolves it earlier due to a GE being called)

Don't suggest what I believe.

I said what I said in answer to your ignorance of what drives the tory party.

I'm not suggesting what you believe, you confirmed what you believe here:

Derek Smith said:

I doubt Johnson will be leading the tories into the next GE. The real question is when he will go. I doubt the party will change its rules, so a NC vote is unlikely. However:

The tory party conference is, unlike labour's, not required in their constitution. If they're in power, it's more of a party, a bit of preening, the old boy reunion. They want to display: themselves as well as their trophies. Everyone will be there: the faithful retainers, allowed in after all their work, to be patronised by those who can be bothered to turn up. There will also be the supporters who are funding the party. They are there to ensure they are getting their money's worth. If they are not, they have meetings, breakfasts and lunches with various cabinet ministers. This year they might well be cornering the pretenders, seeing what they will get for their purchases.

Murdoch might well have some to meetings, just before the conference is a warning sign to the leader, or after if it all went badly.
This is when the deed will be done.
This is when the whips get to discover who they will be damaging, and who they will support.

The main conference room is for those outside the sphere of influence for most of the time.

The standing ovation will be timed, and it will be interesting to see who remains seated.

The deal will be done by the important people, at invitation only meetings.
Once they have Johnson in their crosshairs, he'll go

Once again, barring the 1922 committee changing their rules ( you have said they won't change the rules), or Johnson resigning, how will the Tories get Johnson out?

According to you, and I quote:

"The deal will be done by the important people, at invitation only meetings."
"Once they have Johnson in their crosshairs, he'll go"

How will this come to pass?