When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[87 027]

What will be the size of the defeat?

I saw a suggestion in one of today's papers that if the 148 Conservative members who expressed their lack of confidence in the PM were to abstain on future votes in the House of Commons, that could make life interesting...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I saw a suggestion in one of today's papers that if the 148 Conservative members who expressed their lack of confidence in the PM were to abstain on future votes in the House of Commons, that could make life interesting...

But would they prepared to upset the proverbial apple-cart at mid-term period? That is the question that should occupy their minds.

Are you hoping for a sudden outbreak of "turkeys voting for Christmas" syndrome in the ranks of the Conservative back-benchers?

Incidentally, one of my twin sons who knows well my political leanings, recently was asked "Would your Dad ever consider voting Labour" and being possessed of a good sense of humour and a knowledge of past political happenings, responded with "Remember that famous Ian Paisley outburst....Never, Never, Never, Never, Never"

 

[87 027]

But would they prepared to upset the proverbial apple-cart at mid-term period? That is the question that should occupy their minds.

Are you hoping for a sudden outbreak of "turkeys voting for Christmas" syndrome in the ranks of the Conservative back-benchers?

The interesting question will be whether there comes a tipping point at which those MPs who wish to see a continuation of a Conservative majority government after the next general election believe that the incumbent PM becomes more of a hindrance than a help to that objective

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The interesting question will be whether there comes a tipping point at which those MPs who wish to see a continuation of a Conservative majority government after the next general election believe that the incumbent PM becomes more of a hindrance than a help to that objective

Then let such matters proceed and when it does occur, you can be the first on this thread to say "I told you so"....

 

[brad465]

He might seem stupid to many on this thread, but do you honestly think that he will put forward such a matter that he knows will lead to a defeat in the House of Commons?

Oh he's not stupid alright, almost everything that seems stupid is an act to try and be more appealing and/or distract from stuff he does that he knows won't be popular. Partygate though went a long way to exposing his true nature and his act is working on less and less voters.

 

[The Ham]

That being the case, why have the need then for 19th century morality standards in the year of Our Lord 2022?

There's stuff that was acceptable in the 19th century which isn't now.

Child labour, lack of workers rights and only male land owners having the right to vote to name a few.

 

[jfollows]

Incidentally, one of my twin sons who knows well my political leanings, recently was asked "Would your Dad ever consider voting Labour" and being possessed of a good sense of humour and a knowledge of past political happenings, responded with "Remember that famous Ian Paisley outburst....Never, Never, Never, Never, Never"

If you'd asked me, a member of the Oxford University Conservative Association, in 1991 1981 whether I'd ever consider voting Labour I'd have said the same thing. I voted Labour for the first time in the 2019 General Election and I plan to vote Labour in the next election.
People and political parties change. In this case I'd say that the Conservative Party has changed more than I have, and has become the Blue Anarchist Party today. But that's my perception of course.
EDIT I don't think anyone should vote because of habit or convention, people should vote based on some kind of analysis of the issues at the time and vote accordingly. I think that anyone who says and believes "never" is either wrong or stupid. I once said "never" and I was wrong, and I certainly wouldn't dispute my stupidity.

 

[windingroad]

People and political parties change. In this case I'd say that the Conservative Party has changed more than I have, and has become the Blue Anarchist Party today. But that's my perception of course.

This is why I always caution people not to give any party unconditional support, which I've certainly been guilty of myself in the past.

No matter your political perspective, politicians should have to work for your vote every single election. Defining yourself as "a [insert party here] voter" allows that party to take your interests for granted because they know you, and people like you, will stick with them regardless.

(Not you specifically; I'm making a general point!)

 

[jfollows]

(Not you specifically; I'm making a general point!)

Agreed

 

[Busaholic]

Howsoever, I have four first names, so I am better than him...

Forsooth, I bet you don't have as many second names as I've got.

 

[D854_Tiger]

When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson​

Wow, cast your mind back to 2019 when he won his 80 seat majority, he must have thought he'd landed on his feet.

Inheriting an economy in pretty good shape, structurally sound in that it was easily paying down the national debt.

Then bang Covid hit, Covid hit Johnson (putting him in an ICU), in short it was the worst crisis since WW2.

Now Covid looks to be over and we get the Ukraine war and all the consequences to go with that.

Plus Boris gets a totally hysterical over the top response to a fixed penalty, that wasn't even as bad as a speeding ticket, because of a piece of cake.

I put Partygate down to the country going lock down stir crazy because, here's a thing, I've lived through IMF bailouts, Black Wednesday, highly questionable wars and a banking collapse and no one called for those PMs to fall on their sword.

He's even had to watch Saint Blair become Sir Tony

I rather think Boris must be looking towards the heavens wondering when will it start to go right.

 

[Bayum]

Plus Boris gets a totally hysterical over the top response to a fixed penalty, that wasn't even as bad as a speeding ticket, because of a piece of cake.

I put Partygate down to the country going lock down stir crazy because, here's a thing, I've lived through IMF bailouts, Black Wednesday, highly questionable wars and a banking collapse and no one called for those PMs to fall on their sword.

Were members of the public being fined for taking part in the war?
Were members of the public told time and time again there was no war and such a thing did not happen?
Were members of the public imprisoned (let go) for joking about the war that never happened?

 

[D854_Tiger]

This is why I always caution people not to give any party unconditional support, which I've certainly been guilty of myself in the past.

No matter your political perspective, politicians should have to work for your vote every single election. Defining yourself as "a [insert party here] voter" allows that party to take your interests for granted because they know you, and people like you, will stick with them regardless.

(Not you specifically; I'm making a general point!)

I think most voters vote on a least worst basis.

I used to support Labour religiously, though always safe in the knowledge I lived in a safe Tory seat, oh the joys of FPTP.

I now regret not voting for Maggie, in my view (and Tony and Gordon's view) the most significant PM since WW2.

I finally voted Tory in 2015 for Cameron but only because he was offering an EU referendum and that was on principle.

I'm a ballot paper spoiler nowadays but I do always turn up and frankly was rather glad Boris won, even if I didn't vote for him.

So how did I vote in the referendum, well I supported Leave, but, at the last minute, I was called away on a rather important golfing holiday, so couldn't vote.

I hadn't anticipated Leave could actually win the bloody thing but, in my BREXIT defence, I did take three Remainer golfers out of the count with me and I beat them.

 

[jfollows]

I think most voters vote on a combination of two things:

1. what's best for them
2. what they think is best for the country

In general I think most people vote more for the first than the second. But that's OK, if everyone votes on the basis of self-interest then in some way the best interest for the most people wins, which is kind of what we want.

I'm less convinced with the "least worst" argument, although that does certainly apply in many cases - in general it applies to the choice of party leader, I think, for example. But the electorate is a small subset of the population in this case.

 

[D854_Tiger]

Were members of the public being fined for taking part in the war?
Were members of the public told time and time again there was no war and such a thing did not happen?
Were members of the public imprisoned (let go) for joking about the war that never happened?

Downing Street was a workplace and a workplace that had to be kept going.

The idea the rules were ever going to apply to Downing Street was silly and frankly Boris should have said so, that was his big mistake.

Then Downing Street was no Covid safe haven, frankly the very best place to catch it.

I work in Telecoms, basically I made my own rules, when to work at home and when not to.

I was even stopped by the police driving to Yorkshire, as soon as I told them my job it was, "Fine Sir, no problem."

I drove on the M1 without any other car on the road and I came back over the Humber Bridge to be told, by the toll keeper, I was the only vehicle on the bridge.

My decision and sod the rules some things had to be kept going and the people that kept it going weren't like me, they were mostly the supermarket workers and the bus drivers, some of whom lost their lives doing so, including the two old ladies that ran our local Post Office.

I was safely well out of it, obeying the rules and mostly working from home, the rules were for the lucky ones.

 

[birchesgreen]

The idea the rules were ever going to apply to Downing Street was silly

Why?

 

[D854_Tiger]

The interesting question will be whether there comes a tipping point at which those MPs who wish to see a continuation of a Conservative majority government after the next general election believe that the incumbent PM becomes more of a hindrance than a help to that objective

Exactly, the polls will decide his fate.

Then, bad by-elections not withstanding, his poll rating is pretty damn good for midterm.

Tiverton may hate him but clearly not (maybe never) enough to vote Labour.

As for Wakefield, more questions for Keir then Boris on that result.

Why?

Because they do essential work lot's of which is highly secret.

So we can't answer that, we have to take it on trust.

But I'm sure plenty of those were in the high risk groups, including fatty Boris as it turns out.

Oh he's not stupid alright, almost everything that seems stupid is an act to try and be more appealing and/or distract from stuff he does that he knows won't be popular. Partygate though went a long way to exposing his true nature and his act is working on less and less voters.

Oh I think he will survive and the fact Labour still really can't touch him, despite all this grief, is probably why.

His luck is bound to turn and then what.

Unless his bonking catches up with him again.

 

[87 027]

Oh I think he will survive and the fact Labour still really can't touch him, despite all this grief, is probably why.

I think that's a fair assessment. The next general election will be fought on tomorrow's issues and, as Harold Wilson said, a week is a long time in politics!

 

[Bayum]

Because they do essential work lot's of which is highly secret.

What a load of baloney. How have ‘highly secret’ conversations been had in the past without being face to face? In today’s age, there is absolutely no reason at all that they should have been having mass gatherings.

 

[87 027]

I'm somewhat bemused by calls from non-Conservatives for the PM to resign. Surely if they consider him to be a serious impediment to the Conservatives retaining a majority after the next general election it would be in their interests to let the present situation continue?

 

[Gloster]

I'm somewhat bemused by calls from non-Conservatives for the PM to resign. Surely if they consider him to be a serious impediment to the Conservatives retaining a majority after the next general election it would be in their interests to let the present situation continue?

And there you have the dilemma: every day that Johnson remains in Downing Street, the greater the chance that the Conservatives will be heavily defeated at the election. But in opposition to this, the longer he stays, the greater the damage that he will do to this country’s economy, standing in the world, the rights of this country’s people, etc. It may surprise one or two posters, but those of us on the left may also want what we believe is best for this country and it’s people.

(I trust that this post will not result in a tit-for-tat argument about whether he is harming the country: that is not the point of this post. It is just answering the specific comment.)

 

[edwin_m]

​

Wow, cast your mind back to 2019 when he won his 80 seat majority, he must have thought he'd landed on his feet.

Inheriting an economy in pretty good shape, structurally sound in that it was easily paying down the national debt.

Then bang Covid hit, Covid hit Johnson (putting him in an ICU), in short it was the worst crisis since WW2.

However, by virtue of delivering the Brexit that brought him to power, he'd already holed that economy below the waterline. Covid hitting was actually lucky for him, because it obscured the effects of his actions.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

However, by virtue of delivering the Brexit that brought him to power, he'd already holed that economy below the waterline. Covid hitting was actually lucky for him, because it obscured the effects of his actions.

... or, depending on your point of view, super-lucky for Remainers who could then blame lots of Covid-related-economic-damage on Brexit, with Covid hiding how little economic damage Brexit caused in the end...

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

... or, depending on your point of view, super-lucky for Remainers who could then blame lots of Covid-related-economic-damage on Brexit, with Covid hiding how little economic damage Brexit caused in the end...

Covid was perfect aircover for Brexit and then his luck came up again with Ukraine but with this lot they will find an excuse somewhere except themselves

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm somewhat bemused by calls from non-Conservatives for the PM to resign. Surely if they consider him to be a serious impediment to the Conservatives retaining a majority after the next general election it would be in their interests to let the present situation continue?

On a somewhat different parallel, it was once said that having Corbyn as the Leader of the Opposition was something that the Conservatives were hoping would be the status quo in the run up to the General Election when the thought of Corbyn as being the next Prime Minister was guaranteed to ensure a Conservative victory with a healthy overall majority.

 

[The Ham]

Because they do essential work lot's of which is highly secret.

So we can't answer that, we have to take it on trust.

But I'm sure plenty of those were in the high risk groups, including fatty Boris as it turns out.

My wife works in a role critical to the survival on millions of people where the company is always careful because of the risk of industrial espionage harming their bottom line.

Guess what they managed perfectly well with only bear minimum of staff in doing only the stuff that couldn't be done via a computer (for instance lab based work) by going in.

As I've said before, even if you accept that the rules shouldn't apply to the center of government there should have been firebreaks to stop key people from seeing each other incase too many were incapacitated by Covid (with many companies having two or more teams within departments for that very reason). As such, how do you justify the fact both the PM and chancellor were in the same room?

As such it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the issue of cake in the light of the above is secondary, however it did allow the story to be brought into the open.

 

[Howardh]

If you'd asked me, a member of the Oxford University Conservative Association, in 1991 1981 whether I'd ever consider voting Labour I'd have said the same thing. I voted Labour for the first time in the 2019 General Election and I plan to vote Labour in the next election.
People and political parties change. In this case I'd say that the Conservative Party has changed more than I have, and has become the Blue Anarchist Party today. But that's my perception of course.
EDIT I don't think anyone should vote because of habit or convention, people should vote based on some kind of analysis of the issues at the time and vote accordingly. I think that anyone who says and believes "never" is either wrong or stupid. I once said "never" and I was wrong, and I certainly wouldn't dispute my stupidity.

I voted Labour once, in 19 due to Brexit. I'm quite prepared to vote Labour tactically in the hope of a Lab/LD/SNP coalition in the hope of a much better relationship with the EU and policies r/e cost of living.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I voted Labour once, in 19 due to Brexit. I'm quite prepared to vote Labour tactically in the hope of a Lab/LD/SNP coalition in the hope of a much better relationship with the EU and policies r/e cost of living.

Have the SNP made any statements in recent times that would suggest they would act in conjunction with the Labour Party in such a coalition?

 

[daodao]

Have the SNP made any statements in recent times that would suggest they would act in conjunction with the Labour Party in such a coalition?

Re the SNP: The mere thought that an enemy of the state could participate in governing a country that it wishes to destroy is bizarre. The Castle Catholics in the SDLP might do so, but SF, correctly in the light of their attitude to the UK state, abstain from participating at Westminster.

 

[Typhoon]

Boris Johnson has said he is "actively thinking" about a third term, amid criticism of his leadership.

The prime minister was asked if he would like to serve a full second term in office - to 2028 or 2029.

"At the moment I'm thinking actively about the third term and what could happen then, but I will review that when I get to it," he told reporters.

I struggle to understand his timing on this. I would have thought the safe answer was that there were two more years before an election so there is no need to focus on the next parliament just yet, the focus is to 'get on with the job' then rabbit on about exciting plans going well on into the future for levelling up, attracting high tech industries into the country, (and anything else Gove has mentioned in Cabinet). Instead it is 'Me, Me, Me' when his popularity is about half of that of his party, and has been for about six months now - deflect the question, if necessary he can say that he intends to see out this parliament but anything beyond that is not down to him.

I can only think that he is 'encouraging' his doubters in his own party to shut up (which many of them won't, they are the wrong type of people to do that for lots of different reasons, but mainly because they want the party to be in power after the next election) or get too disillusioned at the prospect of 'seven more years' that they leave politics. Either that, he just doesn't care or he sees himself as the new Margaret Thatcher (going on and on).

Quote from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61939938