[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[A1X]

Only if they change the rules - a new Tory leader can't be challenged for 12 months under existing rules.

The rules for the 1922 committee for their leaders seem to change more often than the opinions of even our most fickle of fans, and basically seem to be "we'll change it to whatever best suits us today".

 

[Gwylan]

Only if they change the rules - a new Tory leader can't be challenged for 12 months under existing rules.

This may not be true ... or it may be.

What is weird is that no-one seems to know. Here's the Mirror writing about it

"But it is thought that under current rules, Liz Truss would be safe from a no-confidence vote for a year - even if letters hit the threshold of 54 that would normally trigger one. The backbench 1922 Committee grants a one-year grace period to leaders who survive a challenge. A source suggested this also applies to new leaders for a year after they take office."

The Mirror is not atypical: this is the way that it's been covered. It seems strange that something as basic as this is not clear from the outset. I'm not even sure that the 1922 Committee knows

 

[Bozza]

This may not be true ... or it may be.

What is weird is that no-one seems to know. Here's the Mirror writing about it

"But it is thought that under current rules, Liz Truss would be safe from a no-confidence vote for a year - even if letters hit the threshold of 54 that would normally trigger one. The backbench 1922 Committee grants a one-year grace period to leaders who survive a challenge. A source suggested this also applies to new leaders for a year after they take office."

The Mirror is not atypical: this is the way that it's been covered. It seems strange that something as basic as this is not clear from the outset. I'm not even sure that the 1922 Committee knows

I can't be bothered to research further than this tweet which cites Graham Brady as confirming it...

[tweet]1574815174057496579[/tweet]

I fully concede it's largely a moot point though, as they will just change whatever rules exist to suit.

 

[Gwylan]

I can't be bothered to research further than this tweet which cites Graham Brady as confirming it...

[tweet]1574815174057496579[/tweet]

I fully concede it's largely a moot point though, as they will just change whatever rules exist to suit.

Thanks. I hadn't seen that ... reports I'd read said that it was unclear

But, as you say, I imagine that if enough MPs send letters in, that rule will mysteriously disappear

 

[Machiavelli]

This may not be true ... or it may be.

What is weird is that no-one seems to know. Here's the Mirror writing about it

"But it is thought that under current rules, Liz Truss would be safe from a no-confidence vote for a year - even if letters hit the threshold of 54 that would normally trigger one. The backbench 1922 Committee grants a one-year grace period to leaders who survive a challenge. A source suggested this also applies to new leaders for a year after they take office."

The Mirror is not atypical: this is the way that it's been covered. It seems strange that something as basic as this is not clear from the outset. I'm not even sure that the 1922 Committee knows

I can't be bothered to research further than this tweet which cites Graham Brady as confirming it...

[tweet]1574815174057496579[/tweet]

I fully concede it's largely a moot point though, as they will just change whatever rules exist to suit.

There are other ways around 1922 rules, as the predecessor found out.
I did say back when Johnson was PM that they wouldn't get away with the changing leader approach again. I was wrong then, but think it applies even more now. They're stuck with her until the next election -- Johnson was removed by mass Cabinet resignations, but doubt that can be done again so soon, and Truss' Cabinet is packed with even more loyalists. The parliamentary party might vote against them and, if it's a budget (rather than a 'fiscal event'), this is effectively a vote of no-confidence in the government. Beyond that, the (parliamentary) party's only option is to try and force an earlier election than May/Dec 24 in the hope that less damage is visited on the party.

 

[Springal]

Rejoice. All you first time buyers, if you are on £30k a year - get to London now !

[tweet]1575493522265759744[/tweet]

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

There are other ways around 1922 rules, as the predecessor found out.
I did say back when Johnson was PM that they wouldn't get away with the changing leader approach again. I was wrong then, but think it applies even more now. They're stuck with her until the next election -- Johnson was removed by mass Cabinet resignations, but doubt that can be done again so soon, and Truss' Cabinet is packed with even more loyalists. The parliamentary party might vote against them and, if it's a budget (rather than a 'fiscal event'), this is effectively a vote of no-confidence in the government. Beyond that, the (parliamentary) party's only option is to try and force an earlier election than May/Dec 24 in the hope that less damage is visited on the party.

I think the only way out is for a Sunak - May -led grouping to join the opposition in a vote of no confidence - indeed, a vote against the budget would count - out of concern for the damage being done to the country and economy. That would be utterly extraordinary and completely gripping if it came to pass, and would put a fitting ribbon on the clusterf*ck of the last seven years of Tory rule since the coalition ended.

 

[Machiavelli]

I think the only way out is for a Sunak - May -led grouping to join the opposition in a vote of no confidence - indeed, a vote against the budget would count - out of concern for the damage being done to the country and economy. That would be utterly extraordinary and completely gripping if it came to pass, and would put a fitting ribbon on the clusterf*ck of the last seven years of Tory rule since the coalition ended.

Yes, what now seems increasingly certain (famous last words) is that it will end, and end within two years or so. The question, and intrigue, is how.
I've stated that I don't think Truss/KamiKwarsi are implementing disaster capitalism. Instead, I think they really believe this stuff: they're ideologues. Incompetent ideologues perhaps, but ideologues nevertheless. This jars with the history of the Conservative Party which will do anything to hold onto power, which it's been remarkably effective at for 350 years.
Which leaves the likes of Hunt/May/Sunak that you mention with a decision: do they allow this to play out until the bitter end, enabling maximum damage to the brand; or, do they intervene in the short-term, accept they've lost the next election by doing so, but securing a swifter return to power.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Yes, what now seems increasingly certain (famous last words) is that it will end, and end within two years or so. The question, and intrigue, is how.
I've stated that I don't think Truss/KamiKwarsi are implementing disaster capitalism. Instead, I think they really believe this stuff: they're ideologues. Incompetent ideologues perhaps, but ideologues nevertheless. This jars with the history of the Conservative Party which will do anything to hold onto power, which it's been remarkably effective at for 350 years.
Which leaves the likes of Hunt/May/Sunak that you mention with a decision: do they allow this to play out until the bitter end, enabling maximum damage to the brand; or, do they intervene in the short-term, accept they've lost the next election by doing so, but securing a swifter return to power.

I think the worse the economy gets the swifter the eventual return to power, because it will be even harder for Labour to sort out the mess. Recall the Barber budget of '72, a tax-cutting disaster, which ended up in 3 day weeks and the winter of discontent - blamed squarely on Wilson and leading inexorably to the Thatcher government. My Dad will still never vote for Labour because of what happened in 76-77, even though the blame can be fairly laid at the door of the previous Heath administration.

No, I think Sunak/May/Hunt stepping in would be about country, not party - these names are listed because they're some of the few you could see making that determination. It is extremely unlikely to happen of course, but would be a sight to behold.

 

[A1X]

I think the only way out is for a Sunak - May -led grouping to join the opposition in a vote of no confidence - indeed, a vote against the budget would count - out of concern for the damage being done to the country and economy. That would be utterly extraordinary and completely gripping if it came to pass, and would put a fitting ribbon on the clusterf*ck of the last seven years of Tory rule since the coalition ended.

Not sure, isn't it officially "not a budget"? I'm beginning to wonder whether their sophistry was more than just an attempt to downplay it.

 

[Springal]

This Twitter thread is quite interesting. Not surprised to see some of the ‘compromised’ Tory’s involved of course

 

[Springal]

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Gavin Williamson had a full scale toddler tantrum, trying to bully the ex Chief Whip Wendy Morton because he hadn’t got an invite to the Queen’s funeral. He’s been sacked twice from the government, but still Sunak gave him a job.

Williamson faces inquiry over abusive messages to Tory chief whip

The Cabinet Office minister accused Wendy Morton of withholding invitations to the Queen’s funeral to ‘punish’ out-of-favour MPs.

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Randy McNob]

Here's why taxes have to go up

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Here's why taxes have to go up

The party of business! They actually make a good case for tax avoidance; why would anyone willingly want to fund these corrupt and inept people?

 

[Pevenseagull]

Here's why taxes have to go up

I still think that the test and trace could have been done quickly, cheaply and effectively if the government had got in touch with the people behind Pokemon Go.

 

[BenGarfield]

Here's why taxes have to go up

The tweet is mainly wrong, The function of tax is not to fund government expenditure. Some taxes may have to go up or down for other reasons.

 

[WATFORD zero]

The tweet is mainly wrong, The function of tax is not to fund government expenditure. Some taxes may have to go up or down for other reasons.

Really ? You should have mentioned this before

 

[Hugo Rune]

Really ? You should have mentioned this before

Might be worth it’s own thread if the lad has plenty to say on the single subject?

 

[nicko31]

Gavin Williamson had a full scale toddler tantrum, trying to bully the ex Chief Whip Wendy Morton because he hadn’t got an invite to the Queen’s funeral. He’s been sacked twice from the government, but still Sunak gave him a job.

Williamson faces inquiry over abusive messages to Tory chief whip

The Cabinet Office minister accused Wendy Morton of withholding invitations to the Queen’s funeral to ‘punish’ out-of-favour MPs.

www.independent.co.uk

Still can't believe he was knighted, definitely in the top 5 of most useless Tory politicians since 2015