No one said it was, but we’re talking about our version of democratic processes not political competence
It’s going to Johnson isn’t it?
- Thread starter hackneyfox
- Start date
ClaphamFox
Roofer
if Johnson wins, he’ll be out again before Christmas.
AFCDorset
Roofer
His actions clearly suggested that he would, though he never actually said so.
It is possible that he seriously misjudged the level of support he had among the parliamentary party, but even so he was virtually certain to be alongside Sunak for the members vote, all he had to do was to muster the necessary number of supporters.
So either he was not up for the fight, against the media in the main, or he was 'spoken to' and so the globalist, pro-EU factions will get what they always wanted.
It is possible that he seriously misjudged the level of support he had among the parliamentary party, but even so he was virtually certain to be alongside Sunak for the members vote, all he had to do was to muster the necessary number of supporters.
So either he was not up for the fight, against the media in the main, or he was 'spoken to' and so the globalist, pro-EU factions will get what they always wanted.
ClaphamFox
Roofer
Or he realised that the party would be ungovernable with him in charge and he’d be out again within months, and decided it just wasn’t worth it.
hackneyfox
Roofer
London rejoices.
buz_not_buzz
Occasional Poster
I really don't know what your beef is with the opposition holding the government to account. As you intimate they have no say in who is the leader of any other party even one that has a majority in the house. What happened with Boris & with the execrable Liz Truss seems to me to be completely in line with our democracy such as it is and within the rules of the party to which they belong,. It's hardly the first time this has happened. It normally - but not only - happens when parties are in opposition.
In the end it wasn't the small [read major] part of the economy that panic'd Tory MPs into getting rid of the execrable Liz Truss. If she had pursued her agenda with a modicum of intelligence it would not have been an issue. Not only did she fail to do that - immediately affecting many in a very real sense (regardless of whether the origins of that were her responsibility) - but she gave no indication that she had a clue of the wider issues caused (the U-turns were the paniced reaction) nor how to fix it. Weak, stupid & pathetic. If globalised powers wanted to remove her they needed to do nothing.
Whether you want to view that through the prism of the constitution of the Conservative Party & the self-interest of their MPs or through what is best for the country the answer remains the same. Our democracy (again, such as it is - HA!) was served through her removal.
Apropos of nothing, that the opposition are calling for a general election is predictable but irrelevant. If they want one then they should raise a vote of no confidence. It will fail.
Last edited:
Adumass
Bentleys Roofer
You keep blaming the markets, like they've suddenly arrived on the scene from nowhere and decided to take on the politicians.
It is the same as it has always been. Politicians lead, and markets follow.
Markets only react.
And in this case they have reacted to a spectacular piece of 'budgeting'. Do you really thing truss would be out of they hadn't had their mini budget ?? A clearer case of cause + effect you'll never see.
But if it helps to blame the market, and bizarrely the opposition (for doing exactly what they are supposed to do) then carry on.
Adumass
Bentleys Roofer
It feels like a re-run of the leadership election post Cameron. He teases to assess his chances, takes a long view (i.e. seeing the pile of shit that is on the plate of the winner) and decides to sit this one out...knowing the next opportunity will be along in a couple of years at which point he'll be in pole position.
His statement tonight is unbelievably unhelpful to his party. He's essentially called for a general election, and warned the winner (sunak) that's he ready and waiting to take over at whatever time he decides.
He's not a team player , is he!
buz_not_buzz
Occasional Poster
Abso-bloody-lutely this.
Well hello Buzz
Firstly I think a strong opposition is absolutely vital for this country to function properly, they are finally getting some people in their ranks who I can see being able to represent this country on the world stage but I come back to my original point. It wasn't Labour who caused a change of direction it was the markets, by supporting the markets Labour have effectively said to the markets it's OK to chuck your rattle out of the pram we'll do whatever you say
Whether 7% of the economy is significant enough to wield that sort of power is open to debate
The argument (fact) that it was a poorly thought through policy is not the point and experienced politicians should have thought through their response before jumping on their soap boxes and blowing their customary raspberries.
I think we could debate for many an hour about the best way to remove a sitting PM from office and whether is is democratically sound but the fact remains that the MPs have one again shown zero respect for their membership and it's my hope that it comes to bite them on the arse in the near future
Can you name another occasion when a chancellor has been sacked after a couple of weeks based purely on the reaction of the money markets
This time the market reacted and Labour followed, it's a dangerous precedent
The fact that it was a crap policy isn't really the point
Adumass
Bentleys Roofer
I think we're arguing the same point. It is extraordinary (in the literal sense) for a budget to lead to a sacking. Which tells me that the market do not have the power you credit them with .
As I say, the market react. They don't lead.
Unless you can give examples, I'm still not getting your Labour angle. They will claim they are sticking up for "working people" who were seeing their mortgages increase hugely, and will shortly see their services cut to try and balance the books. This is a consistent Labour line / policy, which has been the case for at least the last 18months. It was not new, or some plot with the markets.
If you want to see who exerted the pressure to sack the chancellor, and ultimately to force her resignation, then look no further than the ruling party. Truss was explicit about this in her resignation speech. Her own words.
Well we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, I'm personally worried about the influence the money men have had on a mid term government
The Labour angle as you put it is simply that they agreed with markets and applied pressure to get what they thought they wanted. Mortgage rates have gone up a little, new fixed term mortgages have gone up a little more. This is the case through most of the world, it just affect the UK population a little more because of high home ownership. Ironically by being complicit in installing a more right wing PM the likelihood is it will make things worse in the short term for the ordinary people because the monetary policies for controlling inflation are to put up interest rates and cut public spending
The Labour angle as you put it is simply that they agreed with markets and applied pressure to get what they thought they wanted. Mortgage rates have gone up a little, new fixed term mortgages have gone up a little more. This is the case through most of the world, it just affect the UK population a little more because of high home ownership. Ironically by being complicit in installing a more right wing PM the likelihood is it will make things worse in the short term for the ordinary people because the monetary policies for controlling inflation are to put up interest rates and cut public spending
Richardvanles
Roofer
Money men influencing government is a cottage industry. Has been for years.
buz_not_buzz
Occasional Poster
I am not sure it is a case of "supporting" but maybe it is just semantics. As per a post yesterday one of the reasons Labour has struggled for credibility with the wider electorate over my lifetime is the widespread perception that they don't give a stuff about the markets and in their more centrist moments consequently spend unedifying amounts of time attempting to mollify them.
You are more generous in your appraisal than am I.