Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[takno]

That's fair enough, but I still hear people insisting that gender dysphoria doesn't exist. That kind of 'debate' is unhelpful at best, and downright dangerous at worst.

Fair enough if people are arguing that. I don't think I've heard anybody I even marginally respect make that claim for years, but I don't discount that there are people saying it. Either way I think we are agreeing that education around the whole general concept is valuable for children.

I imagine the government was trying to imply the whole spectre of dodgy pressure groups like Mermaids being involved in this education. I think that education needs to be developed by real experts and delivered by teachers, and as far as I can tell from talking to various teachers and parents about it that is exactly what is actually happening.

 

[dgl]

I guess the issue is that there are influential people in government who probably think that anything that doesn't fit with their idea of a man is always a man, a woman is always a woman and that a woman is supposed to marry a man and have kids is the devils work and as such is the cause for all our ills, yes there will be people who get failed by the system but I doubt that it is the huge issue that they are making it out to be and actually the main problem is the toxicity over the debate more than anything. They just want to shut down differing beliefs and using scare tactics to justify it.

There are some children who know from an early age that the body they were born into is not who they are and making them aware that the LGBTQ+ spectrum exists then if necessary being able to get them the help they need at an early age is important, remove these that facilities and you'll just cause more issues than you'll ever prevent. It's not just a phase they are going through and some people don't realise that.

There sort of seems to be a theory that if you don't teach people that LGBTQ+ exists then they'll not know it exists and turn out "normal" because of it when all that will actually happen is that they'll learn about it via other methods and they'll become even more confused. Teaching children that LGBTQ+ is perfectly normal is essential for growing up respecting others, the last thing you want it for children to be taught the "religious"/hate version of it and spend their lives being miserable and not being true to themselves because they believe it's wrong/sinful to be who they deep down know they are.
Also I'd be worried that a current government teaching on LGBTQ+ would not necessarily be unbiased towards "normal" behaviour, primarily only teaching what they think people should be and only giving passing comment on anything else.

Of course some people cite old age and it not being a thing back in their days as to why views are different, well my Gran was born before WWII and saw that it was only love and being a good human that mattered, something a lot of people would be wise to heed.

 

[DoubleLemon]

Some people might think that, avoiding teaching - say - 6-year-olds about sex is common sense. But no, I guess in today's warped world, any attempt to avoid sexualising young children can be rubbished as 'culture wars'

(To be fair I can see two sides of it to some extent: You arguably want young children to know at least enough to be able to report abuse, but there are probably good reasons for not teaching any more than that).



As far as I can see, nothing in these proposals is unfriendly to the LGB community. The only possible question mark is over the 'T' bit because the Government are proposing that teachers are required to point out (correctly) that different people have different views on the question of trans identity, and it's not a settled matter. I would think though you'd have to have pretty intolerant views to object to recognising that there are different sides to the debate.

I know you mentioned this, knowing the proper names of the genitals is super important if they confess to a loved one or other adult. The child may not be able to explain properly or may use a euphemism that is not understood or worse misunderstood. Not everyone understands what a pee pee would mean especially in the context of trying to explain they are being abused.

However, I knew I didnt like girls from a very young age. My mum says I used to say "dosnt that man look pretty" when I was old enough to talk. I was beaten multiple times as at school and the best thing I did was move away from my home town. I hated growing up with a passion and was close to taking my own life on a number of occasions.
Just because YOU don't understand - its not you this is aimed at. Its people like me. You have no idea what these groups go through due to ignorance like yours.

 

[Enthusiast]

I'm not even convinced that there are two sides to debate. Gender dysphoria is a recognised psychological condition (it's in the DSM!), so debating it is as useful as debating the existence of depression or bi-polar disorder.

The debate is not whether gender dysphoria exists (though I'm not sure that inclusion in an American text book on psychiatric disorders is conclusive proof that it does). Many people suffer all manner of mental anguish stemming from all sorts of problems and there's no reason to dismiss such anguish over a person's gender identity any more than any other type of anguish. The debate is how much education should be provided to very young children on such a condition (in the same way that providing education on any other form of anguish must be treated with caution). This is particularly so when such education may include information on potentially harmful physical procedures and drugs that may be used on those suffering from such conditions.

There is, of course a separate debate about whether all those claiming to be transgender genuinely are, or whether their claims are made so as to follow a fashion, as many young people are prone to do.

 

[nw1]

There is, of course a separate debate about whether all those claiming to be transgender genuinely are, or whether their claims are made so as to follow a fashion, as many young people are prone to do.

Please, let's not get into that way of thinking.

 

[75A]

There is, of course a separate debate about whether all those claiming to be transgender genuinely are, or whether their claims are made so as to follow a fashion, as many young people are prone to do.

My Stepdaughter is a case in point. Shes 42 years old, had 3 tatoo's done when she was a teenager, smoked cigarettes and then took up ecig's when they became trendy. Now has changed her name by deed poll to Mr and has a non gender specific christian name and a family surname, couldn't be bothered to change her Passport though so she's still Miss on that.
SHe's a large lady and has now taken to binding her breasts back to make her chest smaller!

I wonder what the next fad will be?

 

[yorkie]

Can we try to ensure posts are relevant to the topic of Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party, rather than a generic discussion on any other topic.

Thanks.

 

[The Ham]

Hunt's (double check spelling and don't rely on predictive text) speech going on about an extra £10bn of spending by Labour whilst taking about more tax cuts is basically the same money.

Either way the average is £150 per person (not that it's likely to impact those with the highest taxes - which is likely to include indirect taxes, so don't expect to see an extra £12/ month in your pay, although maybe a bit more as that average includes children).

As a tax cut that's either got to mean more other spending cuts or (although it could be also) the tax cut being smaller for most people and business getting some of that money.

If it's more money for spending then we don't get a tax cut but public services aren't squeezed yet again and so there's a better chance that they work a bit better.

The question boils down to which of those two is going to help you the most. That's going be different for different people.

 

[takno]

Hunt's (double check spelling and don't rely on predictive text) speech going on about an extra £10bn of spending by Labour whilst taking about more tax cuts is basically the same money.

Either way the average is £150 per person (not that it's likely to impact those with the highest taxes - which is likely to include indirect taxes, so don't expect to see an extra £12/ month in your pay, although maybe a bit more as that average includes children).

As a tax cut that's either got to mean more other spending cuts or (although it could be also) the tax cut being smaller for most people and business getting some of that money.

If it's more money for spending then we don't get a tax cut but public services are squeezed yet again and so there's a better chance that they work a bit better.

The question boils down to which of those two is going to help you the most. That's going be different for different people.

I think you probably missed "n't" in the second-last paragraph

 

[The Ham]

I think you probably missed "n't" in the second-last paragraph

Thanks, update.

 

[Enthusiast]

If it's more money for spending....there's a better chance that they work a bit better.

You're making the mistake of applying normal business principles to public services. They don't work like that and more spending does not necessarily mean better services. In the case of the NHS, for example, it has had shedloads of additional money thrown at it over the past few years and patient outcomes now are manifestly worse in almost every area than they have ever been.

There's a chance that they may work a bit better with more money, but there's a far greater chance that they will not. Unfortunately politicians trumpet their "success" principally in terms of money spent - they pour scorn on the opposition if they suggest they will make cuts.

 

[najaB]

You're making the mistake of applying normal business principles to public services. They don't work like that and more spending does not necessarily mean better services. In the case of the NHS, for example, it has had shedloads of additional money thrown at it over the past few years and patient outcomes now are manifestly worse in almost every area than they have ever been.

Largely because the additional spend goes into additional layers of administration. This is in line with the apparent goal of some in the Tory party to have a "US-style" health system where something like a full third of health spend goes on administration.

 

[edwin_m]

The Tories have imposed at least one major sets of "reforms" on NHS administration since 2010 - so why have outcomes just got worse?

 

[The Ham]

You're making the mistake of applying normal business principles to public services. They don't work like that and more spending does not necessarily mean better services. In the case of the NHS, for example, it has had shedloads of additional money thrown at it over the past few years and patient outcomes now are manifestly worse in almost every area than they have ever been.

There's a chance that they may work a bit better with more money, but there's a far greater chance that they will not. Unfortunately politicians trumpet their "success" principally in terms of money spent - they pour scorn on the opposition if they suggest they will make cuts.

I wasn't clear, by more money I meant not less money (which would be the case to deliver tax cuts).

(Ignoring inflation to make the comparison easier) If department x gets £2 billion now in 5 years time they'll still get £2 billion rather than seeing that reduced to at most £1.94 billion (at most as defence and a few others are increasing so it'll mean larger falls by that which are being cut).

The issue with the NHS is a little different. Not least that the population is aging (the numbers over 65 as a percentage is increasing which means the actual numbers over 65 is increasing faster than population growth would imply).

Largely because the additional spend goes into additional layers of administration. This is in line with the apparent goal of some in the Tory party to have a "US-style" health system where something like a full third of health spend goes on administration.

Do you have any evidence that the number of admin people in the NHS has increased?

 

[YorkRailFan]

A Tory Peer in the Lords has given up the Whip:

A Tory peer has resigned the government whip after he was found to have bullied and harassed two people while drunk.

Lord Ranger, a former adviser to Boris Johnson, faces being banned from the House of Lords bars following an investigation into his conduct.

He has apologised for his behaviour and given up the whip - meaning he will have to sit as a non-aligned peer.

A statement from the whip's office said: "Lord Ranger has resigned the government whip and apologised for his actions, which were an unacceptable breach of the standards of the House, and of parliament.

"The committee has recommended a sanction, which should be respected."The House of Lords Conduct Committee recommended Lord Ranger be suspended from the House for three weeks following an investigation into an incident in parliament's Strangers' Bar in January.

The committee also recommended he be banned from the House of Lords bars for 12 months.The committee's report said Lord Ranger had been "visibly drunk" and made "various inappropriate comments" to a group of people.

He then returned to the same group and "acted aggressively, shouting and swearing", calling them "f*****g useless" and "invading their personal space".Lord Ranger served as Mr Johnson's transport advisor when he was Mayor of London and was ennobled in the former prime minister's resignation honours list.

He subsequently apologised to the complainants, saying he did not recall the incident but was "deeply mortified at the descriptions of my behaviour" and "saddened to hear that I caused you distress".He did not attempt to excuse his behaviour but said it was a "wholly uncharacteristic outburst" at a time when his wife and children's health issues had "taken a significant toll" on his physical and mental health.

The House of Lords standards commissioner originally recommended Lord Ranger be suspended for just one week but the Conduct Committee increased the sanction after finding his behaviour had been "particularly serious".

The committee said: "Lord Ranger's bullying behaviour was prolonged in duration, with two separate incidents separated by up to an hour, alcohol was an important factor, and it led to a finding of harassment as well as bullying."The committee also noted the impact on the complainants, one of whom said the incident had made her "more wary about her interactions with people" and left her with trouble sleeping.

As well as suspending Lord Ranger for three weeks, the committee recommended he be banned from the House of Lords bars for 12 months to "underline the House's disapproval of alcohol-related misconduct" and invited House of Commons authorities to institute a similar ban for its own facilities.

The suggested sanctions still need to be approved by peers, who are expected to vote on the recommendations in early June.

Kulveer Ranger: Tory peer resigns whip after foul-mouthed drunken outburst at parliament bar

Kulveer Ranger is set to be banned from House of Lords bars for a year after he was found to have bullied and harassed two people while drunk.

news.sky.com

This means he will be a crossbencher in the Lords unless the Lords Committee suspend him. Some people just don't think twice.

 

[najaB]

Do you have any evidence that the number of admin people in the NHS has increased?

It's not about the number of heads, but the amount of time and money spent.

 

[Typhoon]

The Tories have imposed at least one major sets of "reforms" on NHS administration since 2010 - so why have outcomes just got worse?

There is continual meddling. I think you are referring to the 'Lansley 'Reforms', which dumped a lot of public health work on cash strapped local authorities and set up Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). The CCGs have now been merged and largely sidelined (I think), we now have larger Integrated Care Boards (ICBs). What is the difference? No idea, except a higher proportion of those on our local CCG actually had medical experience, our ICB seems to be top heavy with career administrators and executives I know locally there are pots of money that smaller bodies (Primary Care Networks or PCNs) have to show they have 'done' something to be given it, the tasks seem to change annually, if not more frequently. Instead of spending time looking after patients, medical staff spend time and money showing that they have achieved the annual benchmark. Many of these benchmarks are easier to achieve in areas with one demographic rather than other. The area I live in has a greater proportion older than me (mid 70s) than most of the rest of the county. No wonder GPs are going part time/ retiring early/ not willing to be partners.

What the NHS needs is stability, less meddling, fewer hoops to jump through and no more three-letter acronyms!.

 

[The Ham]

It's not about the number of heads, but the amount of time and money spent.

OK, but so I'll just rephrase the question a little, do you have evidence for this increasing?

I'll also add a second question, if is and it's resulting in well paid medical staff using a lot of their time to do tasks which could be done by lower paid admin staff (or at least easier to train and recruit staff) to allow more time for the medical staff to be with patients, then maybe there should be a few more admin staff in the NHS, discuss.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There is continual meddling. I think you are referring to the 'Lansley 'Reforms', which dumped a lot of public health work on cash strapped local authorities and set up Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). The CCGs have now been merged and largely sidelined (I think), we now have larger Integrated Care Boards (ICBs). What is the difference? No idea, except a higher proportion of those on our local CCG actually had medical experience, our ICB seems to be top heavy with career administrators and executives I know locally there are pots of money that smaller bodies (Primary Care Networks or PCNs) have to show they have 'done' something to be given it, the tasks seem to change annually, if not more frequently. Instead of spending time looking after patients, medical staff spend time and money showing that they have achieved the annual benchmark. Many of these benchmarks are easier to achieve in areas with one demographic rather than other. The area I live in has a greater proportion older than me (mid 70s) than most of the rest of the county. No wonder GPs are going part time/ retiring early/ not willing to be partners.

What the NHS needs is stability, less meddling, fewer hoops to jump through and no more three-letter acronyms!.

I'm not sure about needing stability: You'd normally expect that if an organisation is in crisis, then something needs to change, otherwise the crisis will be permanent. I've heard enough anecdotal stories from people who work in the NHS that seem to indicate it is overly bureaucratic - which again suggests some change is needed. To add to that, my own experience in dealing with hospitals is that the systems for interacting with and communicating with patients are not at all patient-friendly (but I'd grant that might be in part due to insufficient resources to do anything better). So it seems to me that something needs to change - but it also appears that the changes the Government has implemented don't seem to have been effective. It would take someone with far better knowledge than I have to say for sure what the best way to go is, but my suspicion is that both the structure of the NHS and the way that changes have been imposed by Governments are too centralised and too top-down.

 

[bspahh]

I'm not sure about needing stability: You'd normally expect that if an organisation is in crisis, then something needs to change, otherwise the crisis will be permanent. I've heard enough anecdotal stories from people who work in the NHS that seem to indicate it is overly bureaucratic - which again suggests some change is needed. To add to that, my own experience in dealing with hospitals is that the systems for interacting with and communicating with patients are not at all patient-friendly (but I'd grant that might be in part due to insufficient resources to do anything better). So it seems to me that something needs to change - but it also appears that the changes the Government has implemented don't seem to have been effective. It would take someone with far better knowledge than I have to say for sure what the best way to go is, but my suspicion is that both the structure of the NHS and the way that changes have been imposed by Governments are too centralised and too top-down.

An "overly bureaucratic" system might be fine if there is time for the staff to learn how it works. Stability means that you would have time to improve how the patients interact with it, and work out the glitches, which only happen occaisionally.

If a reorganisation ends up with people in the wrong role for their skills/personality etc, they might stay put if they know they only have to wait a while before the next reorganisation.

 

[brad465]

And another one gone...

Chris Heaton-Harris not standing for re-election

The Northern Ireland secretary announced his intentions on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter.

www.bbc.co.uk

Northern Ireland Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris has said he will not be standing at the next general election.
The Tory MP said on X, formerly Twitter, it had been an "honour and a privilege to serve" and passed on his thanks to his constituents in Daventry.
Mr Heaton-Harris has been the Northern Ireland secretary since September 2022, describing it as the "best job in the Cabinet".
He announced his intention in a letter to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
Mr Heaton-Harris was first elected as an MP in 2010. He was appointed Tory chief whip in 2022 by Boris Johnson.
Later that year, Liz Truss appointed him as secretary of state for Northern Ireland, a role he retained when Mr Sunak became prime minister.
At the time, the Stormont power-sharing institutions had collapsed due to a Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) protest against post-Brexit trading arrangements, and much of his time in Northern Ireland was spent negotiating with parties in efforts to restore the assembly and executive.

'I love the people'​

In his letter to Mr Sunak, published on X on Saturday night, Mr Heaton-Harris said: "Working with you I helped negotiate and deliver the Windsor Framework, which both solved many of the major practical issues created by the Northern Ireland Protocol, put in place as we left the EU, and helped reset our countries' relationship with our European neighbours.
"Then, after long and detailed negotiations within Northern Ireland, we produced the Command Paper Safeguarding the Union which resulted in the return of Stormont and devolved government to serve the people of Northern Ireland."
Mr Heaton-Harris added: "I strongly believe the conditions now exist for Northern Ireland to thrive".
Mr Heaton-Harris, who has been an MP for 14 years, said Northern Ireland had "privileged access for manufactured goods into the EU single market, whilst being an integral part of our UK internal market"
"It finds itself in a remarkable favourable position," he added.
He added that he wanted to remain as Northern Ireland secretary until the next election as "there are still a number of pieces of unfinished business I wish to complete and I love the people, place and job".

 

[The Ham]

I have a question, What's the forum's view, should the Tory party have kept a former PM:

Nadhim Zahawi says it was a mistake for Tories to force Boris Johnson from No 10

Former chancellor, who was one of those who urged Johnson to go, says Tories should have realised ‘Twitter was not the country’

www.theguardian.com

Zahawi said in hindsight it was the incorrect call to oust Johnson and described the former Conservative leader as the “most consequential leader since [Margaret] Thatcher”.

“I wish we had held our nerve,” the MP for Stratford-on-Avon told the Sunday Times. “Many colleagues got spooked. If colleagues had stepped back and just realised Twitter was not the country, we’d have probably made a very different decision.”

Basically, was it just Twitter (we mostly think that Johnson should have stayed), or was it the country (that it was good that Johnson left - although please don't confuse that with the aftermath, it's not a question of was the outcome good, although feel free to answer that too)?

 

[YorkRailFan]

Basically, was it just Twitter (we mostly think that Johnson should have stayed), or was it the country (that it was good that Johnson left - although please don't confuse that with the aftermath, it's not a question of was the outcome good, although feel free to answer that too)?

When Johnson resigned, the reality was that there was little to no Government that could function or be saved after the no-confidence vote but also before the vote.

 

[jfollows]

Zahawi is a victim of the Westminster bubble, Twitter wasn’t the reason Boris Johnson had to go, it’s complete nonsense to imply that it was.

The Westminster bubble amplifies perceptions which suit the speaker, and ignores the possibility of alternative outcomes.

Boris Johnson is a liar and a coward, utterly unsuited to the job of prime minister and shown to be utterly incompetent in his attempts to do the job.

He's a unique politician in some ways, and people voted for him in 2019 for a variety of reasons. A number of whom will still wish he were in the job, but many people voted in full knowledge of the sort of person he is but wanted to believe in "Brexit" and didn't want anything to do with Corbyn.

But that's all in the past.

Now many people who voted for him have changed their minds in the light of what's happened since 2019, much of it down to him. His conduct, lies and hypocrisy finally registered with his party, and they ditched him. Correctly in my view. Nothing to do with Twitter.

 

[nw1]

And another one gone...

Chris Heaton-Harris not standing for re-election

The Northern Ireland secretary announced his intentions on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter.

www.bbc.co.uk

Not my favourite MP in all honesty, he won't be missed.

In other news I see the Express has a feature on Badenoch's latest rantings:

Kemi Badenoch orders British firms to 'end the woke madness'

Badenoch attacked the "creeping and counter-productive politicisation of our business environment".

www.express.co.uk

Apparently businesses are spending too much time being woke, or something.

The article suggests that in general, "being woke" will not attract extra customers.

OK, fair enough. But will it put off customers? Unlikely I suspect.

A couple of things. Firstly it may be that certain CEOs feel they have a moral duty to speak out about such matters as trans, Palestinian or migrant rights - and if they believe this will not harm their business, it is their moral right to do so. Politicians - Tory and Labour, sadly - seem blatantly uninterested in liberal issues right now, so perhaps some business leaders believe that, as public figures, they have to do it in absence of the politicians doing anything.

Secondly, why does she think she has the right to tell businesses what to think and what to do? One of the central beliefs of Tories is a laissez-faire approach with minimal government interference: maybe she should read up on core Tory principles and stop interfering.

 

[jfollows]

Not my favourite MP in all honesty, he won't be missed.

He was instrumental in the Windsor Framework and in re-establishing the Stormont government, for which I think he deserves credit.

 

[nw1]

I have a question, What's the forum's view, should the Tory party have kept a former PM:

Nadhim Zahawi says it was a mistake for Tories to force Boris Johnson from No 10

Former chancellor, who was one of those who urged Johnson to go, says Tories should have realised ‘Twitter was not the country’

www.theguardian.com

Basically, was it just Twitter (we mostly think that Johnson should have stayed), or was it the country (that it was good that Johnson left - although please don't confuse that with the aftermath, it's not a question of was the outcome good, although feel free to answer that too)?

No. Zahawi is obviously blind to the fact that Boris lectured to and moralised at all of us during Covid, while breaking the rules himself in a very blatant way.

This is an unforgivable wrongdoing. He had to go.

But rather than force Truss and Sunak on us, there should have been an autumn 2022 general election, to take place before Trussnomics were unleashed on us. Truss vs Starmer.

 

[Snow1964]

Back to Rishi talk

I am hearing (admittedly about third hand) but apparently comes from someone who has spoken to the MP (and obviously this is unverified) that Sunak is expected to sit tight and not call an election until after conference season. I guess assumption is will lose if go now, might do less worse if go later.

So that effectively means no election until end October or later.

Sounds like view is hopefully things pick up, and the summer recess should stop in-party squabbling being in the news, and by then a pending election will be inevitable sometime soon.

Seems to be only two realistic windows, sometime during November or early December or let Parliament expire on 17th December then go for 28th January election day (early and mid Jan is likely ruled out as it puts electioneering into Christmas and New Year season).

My view is Sunak is a ditherer, so latter is more likely, and I suppose if he has allegedly ruled out before conferences, and it takes min 3-4 weeks to arrange election, then weather will be rubbish and short daylight whatever date is picked.

 

[nw1]

Back to Rishi talk

I am hearing (admittedly about third hand) but apparently comes from someone who has spoken to the MP (and obviously this is unverified) that Sunak is expected to sit tight and not call an election until after conference season. I guess assumption is will lose if go now, might do less worse if go later.

So that effectively means no election until end October or later.

Sounds like view is hopefully things pick up, and the summer recess should stop in-party squabbling being in the news, and by then a pending election will be inevitable sometime soon.

Seems to be only two realistic windows, sometime during November or early December or let Parliament expire on 17th December then go for 28th January election day (early and mid Jan is likely ruled out as it puts electioneering into Christmas and New Year season).

My view is Sunak is a ditherer, so latter is more likely, and I suppose if he has allegedly ruled out before conferences, and it takes min 3-4 weeks to arrange election, then weather will be rubbish and short daylight whatever date is picked.

No chance of January IMO, even late January will mean Christmas campaigning.

Could it not be late October? What about the Oct 24 date many have bandied around?

While late October or November could produce heavy rain and gales, heavy snow and severe cold is distinctly unlikely. But it is a very realistic risk in January, at least towards the north.

A January election is Sunak's surest way to achieve a historic defeat for the Tories, for a number of reasons:

a) The arrogance of holding off to the last possible moment, despite what the opinion polls say;
b) Potentally dangerously severe weather;
c) Fuel bills at their annual highest;
d) People being grumpy in any case due to post-Christmas blues, which they will take out on the government. "Blue Monday" is supposed to be around the third Monday in January.
e) January election, even at the end, would mean Christmas or immediate post-Christmas campaigning.

It's too late for June now I guess: July and August mean a high-summer election (bad), September means August campaigning (bad).
So the obvious answer is surely October. It won't be that dark (except at the end) and the weather might be OK.

I find it hard to understand why they would want any form of winter-months election at all (i.e. during the GMT period), but January takes the biscuit. Unless he wants to be known as the PM who achieved the lowest vote in modern times, Sunak would be wise not to do that, and instead to hold it as early as possible (around 6 weeks after people return from summer holidays).

 

[takno]

No chance of January IMO, even late January will mean Christmas campaigning.

Could it not be late October? What about the Oct 24 date many have bandied around?

While late October or November could produce heavy rain and gales, heavy snow and severe cold is distinctly unlikely. But it is a very realistic risk in January, at least towards the north.

A January election is Sunak's surest way to achieve a historic defeat for the Tories, for a number of reasons:

a) The arrogance of holding off to the last possible moment, despite what the opinion polls say;
b) Potentally dangerously severe weather;
c) Fuel bills at their annual highest;
d) People being grumpy in any case due to post-Christmas blues, which they will take out on the government. "Blue Monday" is supposed to be around the third Monday in January.
e) January election, even at the end, would mean Christmas or immediate post-Christmas campaigning.

It's too late for June now I guess: July and August mean a high-summer election (bad), September means August campaigning (bad).
So the obvious answer is surely October. It won't be that dark (except at the end) and the weather might be OK.

I find it hard to understand why they would want any form of winter-months election at all (i.e. during the GMT period), but January takes the biscuit. Unless he wants to be known as the PM who achieved the lowest vote in modern times, Sunak would be wise not to do that, and instead to hold it as early as possible (around 6 weeks after people return from summer holidays).

Realistically all of this may be true, but Sunak has demonstrated time and again that he's a colossal idiot, and he's his political advisors are even dimmer than Nick Timothy. There isn't any point trying to make sense of any of it, or go through any phases of bargaining. He's going to hang around breaking things until some time in the next 8 months when the charlatans have determined that the stars align, with a high chance that they'll just end up waiting and waiting until they run out of time. Neither the nation's interests, the interests of the Tory Party or even Sunak's own interests will play into it.