Who's next?

[raven]

Sunak is a terrible candidate. A billionaire during economic agony? A tax dodger? A non-white leader?

Here's hoping he's a better PM than he was Chancellor. £11bn in unneccessary interest payments wans't it? Underwrote Covid Bounce Back Loans without insisiting on even the most cusory checks to prevent fraud. Ditto with furlough. Eat Out to Help Out. The Green Home Grant cancelled a year early.

Not a perfect record. Good news for Freeports though, that's his pet project.

[EACLucifer]

Sunak is a terrible candidate. A billionaire during economic agony? A tax dodger? A non-white leader?

Here's hoping he's a better PM than he was Chancellor. £11bn in unneccessary interest payments wans't it? Underwrote Covid Bounce Back Loans without insisiting on even the most cusory checks to prevent fraud. Ditto with furlough. Eat Out to Help Out. The Green Home Grant cancelled a year early.

Not a perfect record. Good news for Freeports though, that's his pet project.

And a Sinophile at a time people are waking up at last to the appalling behaviour of red China's fascist regime.

[Tessa K]

"I believe I have much to offer but I am afraid that this is simply not the right time."

This would be a useful line when turning down someone who asks you on a date.

[Woodchopper]

There is one implication of Johnson’s statement.

If he wrote that he hadn’t made 100 nominations then he would have been able to spend the next few years claiming that the obvious choice of the party members had been stitched up by the elites. That would have entailed him undermining Truss’ successor.

By claiming that he could have gone to a vote of the membership but decided not to he’s helped to enhance the legitimacy of the winner.

[El Pollo Diablo]

"I believe I have much to offer but I am afraid that this is simply not the right time."

This would be a useful line when turning down someone who asks you on a date.

TBF if you look even vaguely feminine then there's a strong chance the person asking you on a date will be Boris Johnson.

[El Pollo Diablo]

There is one implication of Johnson’s statement.

If he wrote that he hadn’t made 100 nominations then he would have been able to spend the next few years claiming that the obvious choice of the party members had been stitched up by the elites. That would have entailed him undermining Truss’ successor.

By claiming that he could have gone to a vote of the membership but decided not to he’s helped to enhance the legitimacy of the winner.

I don't know. I think admitting a failure to reach 100 nominations would simply confirm that the MPs think you're a tw.t. That'd allow a cementing of the damaged reputation, from a historical perspective, and would be a hard condemnation to overcome in a few years' time. As it is, I don't think Johnson will need any help at all undermining Sunak. They hate each other. Johnson will either resign as an MP soon or get booted out through a by-election, and will return to writing his racist columns in the Telegraph, f.cking whoever comes across his path with a pulse, an extra X chromosome and low enough standards to want to get into bed with a panna cotta made flesh.

[TimW]

And though I have reached out to both Rishi and Penny – because I hoped that we could come together in the national interest – we have sadly not been able to work out a way of doing this.

Bastards refused to stand aside!

[El Pollo Diablo]

Oh, I thought that line referred to a sex thing.

[TimW]

By claiming that he could have gone to a vote of the membership but decided not to he’s helped to enhance the legitimacy of the winner.

He could have avoided it being totally unconvincing by presenting his nominations and then withdrawing.

[TimW]

This would be a useful line when turning down someone who asks you on a date.

Thanks, that will be v helpful.

[Woodchopper]

There is one implication of Johnson’s statement.

If he wrote that he hadn’t made 100 nominations then he would have been able to spend the next few years claiming that the obvious choice of the party members had been stitched up by the elites. That would have entailed him undermining Truss’ successor.

By claiming that he could have gone to a vote of the membership but decided not to he’s helped to enhance the legitimacy of the winner.

I don't know. I think admitting a failure to reach 100 nominations would simply confirm that the MPs think you're a tw.t. That'd allow a cementing of the damaged reputation, from a historical perspective, and would be a hard condemnation to overcome in a few years' time. As it is, I don't think Johnson will need any help at all undermining Sunak. They hate each other. Johnson will either resign as an MP soon or get booted out through a by-election, and will return to writing his racist columns in the Telegraph, f.cking whoever comes across his path with a pulse, an extra X chromosome and low enough standards to want to get into bed with a panna cotta made flesh.

I guess there are two ways he could have tried to avoid looking like a tw.t. The one he chose was to claim that he made the grade but decided to step down. The other way would have been to follow Trump's example and claim that he was the rightful winner but was robbed.

I do hope that he leaves politics.

[sTeamTraen]

I think Johnson has learned from his Russian friends the art of the ridiculous excuse that nobody believes, but everybody agrees to listen to and pretend is true. Apparently [citation needed; I read it somewhere after the Salisbury poisoners were filmed saying they made a special visit to see the cathedral] it is a standard thing in Russian culture when you are caught doing somethiing terrible to humiliate yourself with a BS excuse, and then a line is drawn under the matter. Surely nobody seriously believes he had 102 nominations, any more than we believed that his hobby is making models of London buses?

[Little waster]

I also must announce that, after considerable thought, I too will be withdrawing from the Conservative leadership challenge despite also getting over the threshold.

I wish to thank the over 150 Conservative MPs who have privately assured me of their full support. They all however go to a parliament in Canada so you won't know them.

I wish at this point to give my full support to whichever rat-faced sh.t-weasel ultimately becomes PM instead of me and would like to remind them of the importance of embracing, and appointing, Ministers from all branches of the Party including those from the often overlooked "Pisstaking, Not-even-a-member, Random Internet Person" tradition for the Good of the Country^TM.

[Little waster]

The Telegraph do something typically Orwellian and chuck their pro-Johnson article into the Memory Hole while acting like it never happened.

I only hope nobody thought to archive it somewhere because that would be embarrassing.

[dyqik]

Ok, so who's next up? We should assume that previous occupants aren't going to get in, I guess?

[philbo]

If (and that's a big "IF") Boris is still an MP in a bit over a year when the next election approaches, I think there is a non-trivial chance of him staging a rug-pulling exercise if a miracle recovery in Tory support hasn't happened. If Tory MPs are still looking down the barrel of electoral annihilation as the next GE approaches, the whole "only Boris can do it" will get him back in even though everybody knows what a lying c.nt he really is.

What would round off the story to perfection would be if he succeeded in f.cking over Sunak pre-election, having a triumphant bloviating return to No.10, then losing his seat.


(When I say "round off the story" - I'm in the middle of writing a parody of most of Hamilton, started when Boris became PM.. I thought I had an ending when Truss became PM: that kind of worked because Hamilton is closed by another Liz/Eliza, singing about the things she did in the 50 years after Alexander Hamilton died.. but who knows how the hell it'll end now)

[Grumble]

If (and that's a big "IF") Boris is still an MP in a bit over a year when the next election approaches, I think there is a non-trivial chance of him staging a rug-pulling exercise if a miracle recovery in Tory support hasn't happened. If Tory MPs are still looking down the barrel of electoral annihilation as the next GE approaches, the whole "only Boris can do it" will get him back in even though everybody knows what a lying c.nt he really is.

What would round off the story to perfection would be if he succeeded in f.cking over Sunak pre-election, having a triumphant bloviating return to No.10, then losing his seat.


(When I say "round off the story" - I'm in the middle of writing a parody of most of Hamilton, started when Boris became PM.. I thought I had an ending when Truss became PM: that kind of worked because Hamilton is closed by another Liz/Eliza, singing about the things she did in the 50 years after Alexander Hamilton died.. but who knows how the hell it'll end now)

You could always leave it ending with Liz Truss becoming PM and being triumphant at the curtain call. The audience will fill in the rest.

[Martin_B]

If (and that's a big "IF") Boris is still an MP in a bit over a year when the next election approaches, I think there is a non-trivial chance of him staging a rug-pulling exercise if a miracle recovery in Tory support hasn't happened. If Tory MPs are still looking down the barrel of electoral annihilation as the next GE approaches, the whole "only Boris can do it" will get him back in even though everybody knows what a lying c.nt he really is.

What would round off the story to perfection would be if he succeeded in f.cking over Sunak pre-election, having a triumphant bloviating return to No.10, then losing his seat.


(When I say "round off the story" - I'm in the middle of writing a parody of most of Hamilton, started when Boris became PM.. I thought I had an ending when Truss became PM: that kind of worked because Hamilton is closed by another Liz/Eliza, singing about the things she did in the 50 years after Alexander Hamilton died.. but who knows how the hell it'll end now)

You could always leave it ending with Liz Truss becoming PM and being triumphant at the curtain call. The audience will fill in the rest.

Or singing about the things she did in the next 50 45 days

[philbo]

You could always leave it ending with Liz Truss becoming PM and being triumphant at the curtain call. The audience will fill in the rest.

Or singing about the things she did in the next 50 45 days

..with the ensemble singing "That's still too much" (instead of "It's not enough")? That's pretty much where I am. I was wondering if I'd get to have a Boris charging bullishly back onto the stage and ripping the mike out of her hands. It might still work with a Rishi coming in after a couple of lines of the song, and Boris still trying to get back in on the act but being shunned by everyone else

[jimbob]

This is quite some cabinet she's assembling.
This could be fun.

Just wondering how this aged

[IvanV]

Standing we have Priti Patel, Tom Tugendhat, Kemi Badenoch, Robert Jenrick, Mel Stride and James Cleverly.

MP voting will reduce it to 4 candidates some time in September. Then the remaining 4 will be reduced to 2 at the party conference at the end of September, again MPs only voting. Then the full party membership get a vote at the end of October, result on 2 November. But any of this might be shortcut, if a prominent front-runner emerges and the rest just stand down, as has happened a couple of times recently.

Suella Braverman was apparently unable to raise the required 10 MPs to nominate her. With only 121 Tory MPs, getting 10 to nominate you is a material obstacle. We can guess that the kind of MPs who might have supported her have preferred the other batshit candidates.

I think the party is still leaning to the right, so probably there will not be a majority for Tom Tugendhat, who seems to be the only moderate candidate.

The journalistic sources are saying that Badenoch is the favourite. It has been said that Patel is quite popular among the wider membership, but doubtless these reporters know better than me.

Jenrick is such a sleazebag I can't envisage anyone voting for him, but his constituents voted him in to parliament.

Cleverly is Batshitman as Private Eye have named him, and there's lots of batshit lovers in the party. But I think he's a bit too much of a foot-in-mouth man to get elected.

I don't know much about Mel Stride. I get the impression he is a Sunakite, which would mean a right winger, but trying to look like the adult in the room in comparison to the batshit group. He lacks prominence, so I imagine he has no chance. But I thought the same of John Major.

[jdc]

Jenrick is such a sleazebag I can't envisage anyone voting for him, but his constituents voted him in to parliament.

Popbitch had a story the other week about Jenrick managing to lose an election in which he was the only candidate:

Back when he was at St John's, Robert ran for a minor role on his college's student committee. Given that he was running unopposed for his chosen position as JCR Academic Officer -- pretty much the lowest rung of student politics at Cambridge -- you'd think it would have been plain sailing. Unfortunately, Robert had already made quite the impression on his fellow students. "He was a sneering and pompous little man", says one ex-classmate.

So sneering and pompous in fact that the college staged a coup, running a campaign to re-open nominations (R.O.N) just to stop Jenrick getting the job. The R.O.N campaign taunted Jenrick with posters of Ronald McDonald and singing Da Do Ron Ron by the Crystals whenever he was earshot.

Worse still, they defeated him. Elections were forced to reopen and poor Robert was swiftly beaten by another candidate and never held office at St John's again.

[philbo]

Jenrick is such a sleazebag I can't envisage anyone voting for him, but his constituents voted him in to parliament.

Electors tend to forget that they're voting for a person, and who/what that person is can often be utterly irrelevant to people who think they're voting for a party, or a party leader (and don't even know the name of the candidate they're voting for, even when they've been the MP for a parliament or three).

..and those voters are often the same ones as complain about how sleazy/greedy etc. MPs are, not seeming to realize they actually have a choice to vote for someone else if their MP has been sleazy and greedy.

And it's incredibly rare for a local parliamentary party to deselect a sitting MP for just being a sleazebag, even though they theoretically have that power (& IMHO should exercise it far more than they do)

[Blackcountryboy]

Jenrick is such a sleazebag I can't envisage anyone voting for him, but his constituents voted him in to parliament.

Electors tend to forget that they're voting for a person, and who/what that person is can often be utterly irrelevant to people who think they're voting for a party, or a party leader (and don't even know the name of the candidate they're voting for, even when they've been the MP for a parliament or three).

..and those voters are often the same ones as complain about how sleazy/greedy etc. MPs are, not seeming to realize they actually have a choice to vote for someone else if their MP has been sleazy and greedy.

And it's incredibly rare for a local parliamentary party to deselect a sitting MP for just being a sleazebag, even though they theoretically have that power (& IMHO should exercise it far more than they do)

John Stokes was our MP from 1970 until 1992. He was an awful person, this from Wiki will give some ideas of his views.

He had little time for professional politicians. He argued that the backbenches in parliament needed more army officers, "more squires, landowners, and country gentlemen." He attributed the decline of deference in society to the demise of the officer classes from positions of influence. He was also a firm defender of the hereditary principle in the Upper House.
During the crippling strikes at British Leyland in the 1970s, Stokes suggested in the House that it might help the troubles there if a few of the ringleaders were taken out and shot.[1] He was a staunch supporter of hanging.[2] He believed that television generally, and the BBC in particular, had "corrupted our English civilisation, our taste and our morals"

We had an active Conservative at work, who said, in answer to our criticisms of Stokes, that he had not come over like that when they were interviewing the potential candidates. We suggested that they should deselect him at the next election; he said we can’t do that, it is too damaging to the party.
It appears the party is more impprtant than the country.

[IvanV]

John Stokes was our MP from 1970 until 1992. He was an awful person, this from Wiki will give some ideas of his views.

He had little time for professional politicians. He argued that the backbenches in parliament needed more army officers, "more squires, landowners, and country gentlemen." He attributed the decline of deference in society to the demise of the officer classes from positions of influence. He was also a firm defender of the hereditary principle in the Upper House.
During the crippling strikes at British Leyland in the 1970s, Stokes suggested in the House that it might help the troubles there if a few of the ringleaders were taken out and shot.[1] He was a staunch supporter of hanging.[2] He believed that television generally, and the BBC in particular, had "corrupted our English civilisation, our taste and our morals".

Rees-Mogg is not very different, desirous of the reintroduction of the 19th Century. He just says it more wittily, as does Mr Farage.

Conservatism, crudely, is the philosophy that the privileged should retain their privileges, and bugger those who are downtrodden by it. The more extreme may desire the reinforcement of such privileges, the reintroduction or of past privileges, and/or the concentration of privileges on a particular group.

A certain degree of deference in society is desirable for society as a whole, but in the right places. And that is the argument that Mr Stokes has corrupted, transferring it from the right places to the unnecessary places. If schoolchildren have insufficient deference for their teachers, not much education takes place. If people in crowds have insufficient deference for rules about how they should conduct themselves and those trying to keep control of the crowd, eg at a stadium, then riots or crushes may occur. But deference to the squire doesn't seem to benefit society, just the squire.